Discussion in 'Current Events' started by holyland red, Mar 17, 2010.
US military chief cautions against Israeli attack on Iran | World news | The Guardian
Al Qaeda Influence Complicates US Approach To Syria | Fox News
Al-Qaeda in Iraq?? Al-Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before the war!
Wonder what will happen in Syria 8 years from now..
Iran raises tension by threatening pre-emptive action | World news | The Guardian
Not so easy: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/w...raeli-military.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=iran&st=cse
^ Of course it isnt going to be easy, people need to stop making Osirak comparisons and realise how delicate of a situation this really is. Provoke Iran and you'll most likely set the entire region on fire.
The Israeli perspective is different from the US's. They just want to stop the Iranian program now with strikes and don't mind so much the consequences. The US wants to end the pursuit of nuclear weapons for good. It doesn't want to have to keep going back and bombing them when they get too close to a bomb.
I don't know that Israel could pull it off at the moment though given their technical limitations rather than the abilities of Iran.
However, I have no idea what Iran might hope to achieve with "preemptive strikes" like the guy in the Guardian article suggested. It would only piss everyone off and set them against Iran.
Also, times to call Hans Brix.
IAEA says Iran denies access to key site - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
After 'two senior US officers' were shot inside the Interior Ministry building in Kabul, apparently in retaliation to the burning of Korans by US soldiers, NATO has removed their staff.
BBC News - Nato pulls out of Afghan ministries after Kabul attack
What has the attack in Kabul got to do with this thread?
While I am not an anti-war nut or anything like that I must say that quote is clearly someone seeking some sort of justification should the US decide to go in.
I feel like Iran, Israel and the US have to take a back seat for a moment here. Just read through the last couple of pages. Al-Qaeda basically running Egypt now? What the feck Danny?
I have to say, even if its unrelated to the context of this thread, these US soldiers were to say the least - incredibly fecking stupid. I mean regardless about what you think about the Quran/Islam, if you're an occupying force struggling to win over the locals then the last thing you do is burn their most holy book. They've just gifted the Taliban a recruitment boost.
Practically = the ones who are ruling Egypt now (or to be accurate the ones who "won the elections") are very close to Al-Qaeda in their beliefs and ideologies, regardless what name they use.
However, Egypt is not what's confusing me really, because the US and the NATO didn't actively help Islamists gain power there.. The main problem is Libya and Syria, as they have been/are helping Al-Qaeda (or their equivalents) gain power in those countries, despite the bad things we all have been hearing the US say about Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists..
Furthermore, the default-one-to-blame for any terrorist attacks happening these days has suddenly changed from Al-Qaeda to Iran, with Al-Qaeda getting almost no mention in the possible suspects list..
This HAS to be a confusing change in the US policy, for somebody who believes what they say, although it does look a lot like how Al-Qaeda gained power in Afghanistan in the first place.. And remember, when the US helped Al-Qaeda grow in Afghanistan, it wasn't called Al-Qaeda at the time either..
Did they win the elections?
If so, how?
Danny's being his usual ignorant self.
I don't really know.. They say they were more organized and prepared than the rest, although they say the Liberals were really the ones behind the revolt against Mubarak.. Forgive me if I don't trust the ending of this..
Egypt's Islamists Secure 75 Percent Of Parliament | Fox News
I would expect an islamist country to have islamists in control of the majority of the parliament. Edit also anything from Fox news shall and deserves to be treated like tribalfootball as a reliable source of news.
Talking about ignorance..
May I ask you a question that would keep you busy for while.. How come Al-Qaeda has a presence now in Iraq when they didn't before the war? How the hell did that happen?
Bush/Cheney was stupid to invade - the Egyptian situation is not comparable though.
1- You have every right to discredit the news you hear from Foxnews, but then again I don't feel myself obliged to believe a 4 minute clip on Youtube.
2- If thinking that the Muslim Brotherhood is Al-Qaeda like "soooo ignorant", why are they dedicating interviews and discussions now to explain how they are "not Al-Qaeda like"? Looks like I'm not the only one having doubts about it, or I'll feel extremely flattered that people are making interviews and Youtube clips only to answer my concerns!
Also, it's a bit pointless to hear what they are saying now if you want to know the truth.. Let's hear them a few years after they get to power..
3- Don't forget the Al-Nour party that came second with a considerable 25% of the votes..
1. The man is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, most possibly the most important, influential foreign policy thinktank in the world, and he is the founder of an anti-extremist organization, after being an activist for an extremist group before. He has also written quite possibly the best book about Islam fundamentalism, called The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left
2. because there are many ignorant americans.
It's easy to analyze afterwards.. I can't say I have a definite proof for what I think, that's why I won't call people with other opinions ignorant. Because after all, nobody can claim he has the confidence to be "so sure" of his analysis, living thousands of miles away from the scenes, with no other intelligence facility than a computer and a TV.. Even with the sort of intelligence Bush had it wasn't easy to predict the outcome.
So to think that you know for sure what the situation in Egypt is has in my opinion no real grounds..
But as it is, I'll ask you one more question: Compared to Mubarak, do you think the current Egyptian parties who gained power after the fall of Mubarak carry less or more risk than Mubarak to prove dangerous for the world in the future?
The Muslim Brotherhood got so powerful because of Mubarak.
You mean because he was oppressing them?
Because he was oppressing his people and islam in particular. This is kind of proves that Newton's Third Law of Motion works in society too.
Well, we haven't seen yet what those parties will do to their people (especially the non-Muslims, although I don't have a good feeling about that), so we'll wait on this comparison for now, but are you saying Mubarak is bad because he made parties like these rise through his faulty policies?
He created a totalitarian regime with American help, which was an ideal ground for religious extremism.
Yes, more or less. In many ways I suppose its a contextually relevant point considering thats how the Iranian revolution came about too.
No they're not. Not even close. I'm not going to get into Syria and Libya, as my knowledge of those countries is nowhere near as extensive as it is on Egypt. My wife and her family are from Egypt and it is effectively a second home for me. Al-Nour, as extreme as they are, and especially the Muslim Brothers, have no close link, in actions or policies, with Al-Qaeda, at all. And the army are in reality still very much in control and are likely to wield great power in the background for the foreseeable future.
And yes, they won the elections, I'm not sure why you put it in quotation marks. Its hardly surprising that, after 60 years of secular arab nationalism, that has led to decreasing living standards in the Arab world's most populous country, an Islamic country is going to vote for Islamic parties in its first elections.
There are a whole barrel-load of reasons why the Islamic parties won this first election. Mubarak's policies, towards his people, the Brothers and the Salafis have contributed. An association was made between 'Secular' and the 'NDP' and so people want to try something different. Many think that an Islamic party is likely to be less corrupt than a Secular (Mubarak like) party. Lack of good education. The huge network already developed by these two groups. The arrogance of the liberal groups going into the elections. The 'safety net' of Tahrir for some. It being an Islamic country. etc etc.
Because a lot of people are ignorant? The Brothers in Egypt haven't been violent for a long long time and have become a very pragmatic group. But for many in the world now, Muslim=terrorist and so any organisation with Muslim in its name will immediately arouse suspicion.
The Salafis have unfortunately been given a much larger platform because of Mubarak. He used them as a counterweight to the Brothers and so allowed them to preach on tv, in the mosques and in the literature mostly without troubling them, certainly to nowhere near the same scale as he did with the MB. And their rhetoric resonates in the rural areas especially. But people are hungry for results and have high expectations. The people will know that the FJP and Al-Nour now hold 75% of the seats. If these two don't deliver economically and socially, even if they're not in a coalition, they really won't be happy.
For all the fears in the West about the West, Israel etc, the parties have 90 million people who want results. They need to sort out unemployment, illiteracy, hepatitis, housing etc for all these people before they start thinking about such important issues as what tourists can wear on the beach and starting their global campaign to destroy the West.
In what way? Do you think the Freedom and Justice Party is likely to start a Jihad in the future? The people aren't interested in war. They're interested in dignity. They're interested in jobs, in having food on the table, in good schools and prospects for their kids. If the parties don't deliver, Tahrir and the election booths are always there. And, as I said, the army, which has enjoyed 60 years of unrivaled power and which holds something like 30% of the economy (and which the West can always turn to I'm sure if they feel like the Brothers aren't too much to their liking), isn't suddenly going to disappear.
Exactly! And this is my point actually. The US is fighting religious extremists in some areas of the world, and growing more in other areas! How is this making any sense?
They're not 'growing more' in Egypt on purpose, they've been supporting Sadat and Mubarak because they shut up and keep Israel's southern border quiet. They assumed that the two would be able to keep their populations sufficiently quiet so that any growing of extremists would be kept under control. Mubarak, for the most part, did his job. Now he's gone though and the thirty years of repression are leading to certain voting patterns. I'm hopeful that in the future, they will change and become slightly more balanced out.
And I don't think many would deny America's hypocrisy in foreign policy. But that doesn't mean that its part of some greater conspiracy.
That wasnt my point - quite the opposite. That the Egyptian people voted for a muslim party (that is in no way worse or more extreme/fundamentalist than the policies of some of the US' closest allies and oil suppliers) is a natural consequence of the dictatorship of Mubarak.
The sooner the muslims themselves throw over every secular or nonsecular dictatorship, the better. Even if they elect secular parties.
Muslim Brotherhood wants an Islamic state for Muslims right? So a Christian could drink alcohol there, but it would be illegal for Muslims?
ANALYSIS: As government-in-waiting, Brotherhood finds voice
Technically, shariah law isn't meant to apply to non-Muslims if I remember correctly. And funnily enough (I had to check this when I heard it as well), the FJP does actually have Christians within its ranks.
And something both the Brothers and some high up members of Al-Nour have said is that, in the short term at least, people don't care about the beaches or Islamic punishments or the West or Israel or any of the other tired cliches that have been put out in the media ever since it became obvious the Islamic parties would do well. The people elected them because they're poor. They can't eat. They can't read and write. They have no jobs. They have no dignity. That is what they're going to have to fix. And they've said this.
In the long term, who knows what they'll do? I despise the Salafis and my opinion of the Brothers is little better. But we seem to have a bit of a tendency to dramatise and exaggerate the whole situation. In the short term at least, they have a lot of pressing domestic issues to solve. And they'll probably be rather willing to do so with Western and Eastern investment alike. I reckon the FJP will try to form a coalition as well, with anyone, so that if they fail the peoples' extremely high expectations (which they will imo), the blame will not fall solely on them.
They have to form a coalition with 43% of the seats.
africanspur, first of all, I wasn't talking about the people. Muslims are no different from other people. They want to live peacefully, and that's the case everywhere. In Afghanistan too. And in Iraq. And in Iran...
People will always have high hopes after big changes like these, but things can change quickly.
I'm not saying what you said is NOT true, but forgive me if I (as somebody who is looking from outside) have my doubts, and want to wait to see the outcome before deciding if the change was good or not. And I'd definitely need to see the Muslim Brotherhood rule the country for several years before I can say what their beliefs really are.
Have you heard the slogans Mubarak came with when he came to power? Do you think he came and said: "I'll be a dictator and rule and oppress you all!"? No.
But why debate about Egypt, where the situation isn't really as clear as it is in Libya and Syria?? My point is not limited to Egypt, in fact Egypt isn't even my main point, because the US intervention there was minimal.
If you look at Libya and Syria, the US is clearly and actively supporting groups who have more ties to Al-Qaeda than Saddam had! And they used that as an excuse to topple Saddam Hussein! What the hell has changed?!
Separate names with a comma.