Will Egyptians become the 1st country to successfully reject Islamism?!

Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
Very weak - not expected from you!!
Do you have anything to say about what she said about Egypt?
Can't you see how the youth have been turned into robots? As soon as one says a name - they can recite 10 different article headlines from libby mediums.
BTW - she never said such thing about the embassy in Tehran......someone somewhere must have taken her words out of context.....as the left always does.
Again - any thoughts of what she said about Egypt? that is what this thread is about right?
Here's that video of her saying she's going to close the American embassy! It's pretty hard to take it out of context as her spokesperson claimed. In fact that claim was even more stupid than what she says here. ;)

[video=youtube_share;ZYNl7rzguR0]http://youtu.be/ZYNl7rzguR0[/video]

At the end of the day Massi, it takes hundreds of consistently intelligent comments to be considered wise. It takes many intelligent comments to be considered intelligent. And it takes only a few STUPID comments for no one to take what you say seriously - even if they agree with what's being said.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
And Tunisia becomes the 2nd country to successfully reject Islamism, while we're excited that ours just got another life line! :ess-cry:

Islamist Party in Tunisia to Step Down

Congrats to them too and dameshoo joosh. They fought/protested very hard to get this thing done and remain as one of the most secular Arab nations. Of course, in this particular case, the unions were extremely strong and that's why it didn't have to come down to a more violent confrontation like Egypt. Hopefully, this will be the roadmap for many other countries with their own struggles againt Islamists. :)
 

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
Great news and way to go. This is what i am saying for years. If we had such a commited and nationalistic army, khomeini and his islamist bunch of mofos wouldnt last more than a year. A total democracy a la Europe is poison to countries with a large moslem population because they will misuse it. You can not let people take part in a democratic system who are clearly stating their aversion against Demokracy. A national and secular army with the right to interfere is always a MUST HAVE in islamic countries. This is why Turkey could survive up to this point (although Erdogan is doing everything is his power to change it) and this is why Egypt has still a chance to operate against those islamists. You give islamists the slightest chance to get themselves involved in the political scene and you can bet they will organize themselves to take over the whole country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
Tunisia on its way to being a role model for the whole region... Much like Egypt, Islamists came to power there in the 1st election after Ben Ali was ousted. However, the rise of a strong Islamist militancy and loss of secular values that many Tunisians cherished, not to mention and economic melt-down, let to a standoff with the Islamist government and large protests for months. The two sides, Islamists and seculars, finally came to an agreement (under pressure from one Tunisia's main union who was on the side of the secular forces) for a hand-over of power to a caretaker technocrat government, proper drafting of the constitution and a new set of elections to take place.

Today, that hand-over to the transition government was completed, with a smile I may add! As the article points out, this is unheard of in the region and hopefully a sign of good things to come and other countries to follow. I think Tunisia is one of the closest Arab countries to Iran in terms of the make-up of moderate/secular and Islamist elements in society. Great news and best of luck to them...

Tunisia's Islamists cede power to caretaker government

All that said, with the mess in Egypt, I think it's safe to say Tunisia is the 1st country to "successfully" reject Islamism.
 

ChaharMahal

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
16,563
261
A total democracy a la Europe is poison to countries with a large moslem population because they will misuse it. You can not let people take part in a democratic system who are clearly stating their aversion against Demokracy.
That's right It has really worked well in Parkistan.
and Since Naser Has really worked in Egypt.

Let's continue to have self appointed "Field Marshals" to rule the country for 10-30 year a time.
 

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
koso sher...

Pakistan is still an islamic republic and a secular army has been a reason islamists couldnt fuck up countries like turkey and egypt up to this point. Both countries will go down the gutter as soon as islamists in egypt and Erdogan in Turkey sucessfully bring the infiltration process to an end. Those secular "field marshalls" have been the reason the turkish republic and the parlamentarian democracy survived up to this point and are now atleast 50 years ahead of a country like iran.
 

feyenoord

Bench Warmer
Aug 23, 2005
1,706
0
Had not been following this thread for a long time...Just came and see some interesting stuff.

Anyway, I do not think you can compare what happened to Egypt to what has happened in Tunisia. In Tunisia things went far more through a civil process, whereas in Egypt it is completely violent and full of vahshi gari...

In the end, anoterh army general is going to be the president most probably. The fact that they have started arresting activists and put restrictions on people says a lot as well. Interesting that we are seeing only one side of story and in the name of restricting radical Islam, other principles that we do believe in are being ignored.

To me, now more than even, it is clear any process of democratization must go through non-violent acts. Otherwise, in the name of certain 'threats' other groups can do anything they want.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
To me, now more than even, it is clear any process of democratization must go through non-violent acts. Otherwise, in the name of certain 'threats' other groups can do anything they want.
I don't know how you come to these conclusions! Every process of democratization in the whole history of mankind has included violent acts. However, that degree of violence varies with the level of acceptance of the autocrat, or the autocracy, of that process: the harder an autocrat digs in his/her heels, the more violent the process will become and the opposite if of course true.

As an example, the 1st revolution in Tunisia started because of an act of self immolation, a violent act. What pursued, led to 300 deaths and 2000 injuries (in a country of 10 million), more violent acts. The only thing that finally stopped that violence at that point was Ben Ali's acceptance that he had to step down. The rest of the process included the flourishing of an Islamist armed insurgency (violence) and two VERY high profile assassinations of secular political players from the opposition (violent acts). The ONLY reason the process did not become MORE violent, was that the moderate Islamist government decided to heed the calls of the people and negotiate a political transition.

The process was/is not any different in Egypt or elsewhere, only the outcome has been different based on relevant parties accepting or refusing to accept the need for that political transition/change. Mubarak and the Shah eventually accepted the need for political change as an example. The IR, Qaddafi, Assad and Mursi, did NOT. When that's the case, the continuation or escalation of violence becomes inevitable and as I said, the harder an autocrat digs in his/her heels, the more violent the process will become - Libya and Syria are perfect examples of this and Mursi's removal was the perfect example of the reverse.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
Had not been following this thread for a long time...Just came and see some interesting stuff.

Anyway, I do not think you can compare what happened to Egypt to what has happened in Tunisia. In Tunisia things went far more through a civil process, whereas in Egypt it is completely violent and full of vahshi gari...

In the end, anoterh army general is going to be the president most probably. The fact that they have started arresting activists and put restrictions on people says a lot as well. Interesting that we are seeing only one side of story and in the name of restricting radical Islam, other principles that we do believe in are being ignored.

To me, now more than even, it is clear any process of democratization must go through non-violent acts. Otherwise, in the name of certain 'threats' other groups can do anything they want.
Sadly they don't comprehend Non-violence, violence is a stark and inseparable pillar/doctrine of their ideology.The statesmen in islamic political parties or group are all more despotic than Field Marshals, they just ware different uniforms. Look at muslim Field Marshals in Iran. I'll take Khosrodaad, Jahaanbaani instead of these Ayatolfieldmarshals any time.

The official insignia of all islamic political parties and/or groups in the world include a picture (or 2) of some sort of weapon, mostly a silhouette of a Kalashnikov or a sword/s.Why is that?

Their doctrine and political ambitions are all based on violence, oppression and force major, you can not compete with them through your ballot boxes. They don't leave you any other choice. Political leaders like Anjam Choudry, Ayman Al Zavaheri or Moghtada al Sadr don't understand or believe in democratic values and in order to stop leaders like them from spreading their deadly poison in the society some time helping hand from Generals might be inevitable.

Emblem of Akhavan ol Muslemin of Egypt:

Muslim-Brotherhood-egypt.jpg
 

feyenoord

Bench Warmer
Aug 23, 2005
1,706
0
I don't know how you come to these conclusions! Every process of democratization in the whole history of mankind has included violent acts. However, that degree of violence varies with the level of acceptance of the autocrat, or the autocracy, of that process: the harder an autocrat digs in his/her heels, the more violent the process will become and the opposite if of course true.

As an example, the 1st revolution in Tunisia started because of an act of self immolation, a violent act. What pursued, led to 300 deaths and 2000 injuries (in a country of 10 million), more violent acts. The only thing that finally stopped that violence at that point was Ben Ali's acceptance that he had to step down. The rest of the process included the flourishing of an Islamist armed insurgency (violence) and two VERY high profile assassinations of secular political players from the opposition (violent acts). The ONLY reason the process did not become MORE violent, was that the moderate Islamist government decided to heed the calls of the people and negotiate a political transition.

The process was/is not any different in Egypt or elsewhere, only the outcome has been different based on relevant parties accepting or refusing to accept the need for that political transition/change. Mubarak and the Shah eventually accepted the need for political change as an example. The IR, Qaddafi, Assad and Mursi, did NOT. When that's the case, the continuation or escalation of violence becomes inevitable and as I said, the harder an autocrat digs in his/her heels, the more violent the process will become - Libya and Syria are perfect examples of this and Mursi's removal was the perfect example of the reverse.
I think you are having difficulty to justify your stance. Tunisian Revolution was by large non-violent. Most of the activists and civil society leaders and people who called upon people to pretest were not asking people to go attack military bases and collect arms, And yes, violence was present and the level of it could have increased, had Ben Ali not left power but that is a very different point.

Same was with Egypt, until when the military came back to power and after that we saw the most brutal crackdowns. Now, Egyptians will have a hard time to get themselves back on the track of democratization.
If they had gone towards similar path as Tunisia , they could have forced Morsi and his party to accept their demands. Sorry, but it is pure nonsense when you are saying that Shah and Mubarak accepted the need for political change while Mursi was not even in power for a year. Shah and Mubarak were in power for 37 and 30 something years, and were the head of totalitarian regimes and their countries with irson fists, wheres the other one did have limited powers.
 

feyenoord

Bench Warmer
Aug 23, 2005
1,706
0
Sadly they don't comprehend Non-violence, violence is a stark and inseparable pillar/doctrine of their ideology.The statesmen in islamic political parties or group are all more despotic than Field Marshals, they just ware different uniforms. Look at muslim Field Marshals in Iran. I'll take Khosrodaad, Jahaanbaani instead of these Ayatolfieldmarshals any time.
I do too. However, saying it is a dangerous thing as it can justify the rule of military dictators. In Egypt for example the military has interest in ruling the country.
No argument in the rest of your post. Most of them have indeed element of violence in their ideology.
Question: would prefer in today's Iran, military (secular) rule?
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
I think you are having difficulty to justify your stance. Tunisian Revolution was by large non-violent. Most of the activists and civil society leaders and people who called upon people to pretest were not asking people to go attack military bases and collect arms, And yes, violence was present and the level of it could have increased, had Ben Ali not left power but that is a very different point.

Same was with Egypt, until when the military came back to power and after that we saw the most brutal crackdowns. Now, Egyptians will have a hard time to get themselves back on the track of democratization.
If they had gone towards similar path as Tunisia , they could have forced Morsi and his party to accept their demands. Sorry, but it is pure nonsense when you are saying that Shah and Mubarak accepted the need for political change while Mursi was not even in power for a year. Shah and Mubarak were in power for 37 and 30 something years, and were the head of totalitarian regimes and their countries with irson fists, wheres the other one did have limited powers.
LOL. Okay buddy, I'm having difficulty justifying my stance! I know you don't like facts and numbers and everything is based on your perception of what is violent and who's getting killed, so no point comparing the number of deaths and injuries in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions or removal of Mursi.

And what does the length of rule have anything to do with heeding to the calls of the people at the moment of a revolution?! Unfortunately, you're VERY uninformed about what happened in these countries, including the fact the Mursi refused to accept a political transition for months before the army take-over, so statements of facts (and generally numbers) look like nonsense to you.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
Sadly they don't comprehend Non-violence, violence is a stark and inseparable pillar/doctrine of their ideology.The statesmen in islamic political parties or group are all more despotic than Field Marshals, they just ware different uniforms. Look at muslim Field Marshals in Iran. I'll take Khosrodaad, Jahaanbaani instead of these Ayatolfieldmarshals any time.
The sad thing Rasoul jaan is that our friend here is still trying to portray Mursi as a flexible, reasonable and I'd even go as far as saying angelic figure right after an article that says he was trying to create an IRGC type entity in Egypt!
:mymistake