Uprising in Egypt Splitting the Conservatives in the US

[Synthaholic]

In reality,the Radical Islamists have now been unleashed in both Egypt & Tunisia. Anyone who doesn't see this is just living in denile.

I know that the Egyptians live in de Nile, but I'm not sure about the Tunisians - I'd need a map.

 

[Synthaholic]

why do they hate us? tell us?

What buildings did they fly planes into ?


The twin towers was a symbol of American business.

The pentagon is still the symbol of American military.

You pretended they attacked us for our freedoms remember?

What you want is for the US to be against democracy.

Democracy will win in the end and if you truely lvoed democracy you would agree that the MORE democracy in this world the better.

Instead you want to support a dictator....why?

so they hate us for our money and our military.. is that what you said?

They hate us for our interference.

 

[kiwiman127]

I keep on reading scare posts on the Muslim Brotherhood. So I thought a little investigation was in store.


Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt are overblown

Mass protests demanding democratic reform and freedom on the streets of Egypt — the Arab world’s most populous nation and one that holds tremendous political and cultural influence throughout the Middle East — left Washington unsure whether it should continue its support of an oppressive regime or stand for the values Americans cherish most. The U.S. government has an unprecedented opportunity to offer Reagan-esque support to an indigenous popular movement in the heart of the Arab world that could fundamentally change the political fabric of the region and secure America’s long-term goal of a free and democratic Middle East. The Obama administration’s response to the protests was shockingly slow and apprehensive, as was the response from other U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle. The U.S. government must now act swiftly to embrace this unique opportunity and not let an exaggerated fear that militant Islamists might fill a void left by an ousted President Hosni Mubarak inhibit it from voicing support for the very principles on which America was founded.

President Mubarak has long attempted to convince the United States that the only alternative to his iron-fist autocracy is the Muslim Brotherhood. He has done this by silencing nearly all secular and moderate political opposition in the country by means of the Political Parties Law, which dates back to 1977 and allows a committee formed by representatives from Mubarak’s National Democratic Party to determine what other parties should receive a license to operate freely in Egypt. Historically, the regime has blocked the establishment of any political party that it deems a potential threat to its grip on power.

The only exception to this uniform political oppression has been Mubarak’s treatment of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak has routinely given the Brotherhood just enough leeway to hold demonstrations and run candidates in elections but then ordered violent crackdowns on the group whenever he felt it had over-stepped its bounds. Mubarak’s political manipulation has created the false perception that no moderate opposition exists in Egypt, and it has allowed him to successfully intimidate the United States into believing that should it abandon him, it will have to deal with a radical Islamist government controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Contrary to popular belief in the West, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a militant Islamist group with close ties to al Qaeda, and its active participation in Egyptian politics would not turn Egypt into a terrorist safe haven. In fact, Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s deputy leader, criticized the Brotherhood at length in 2008 for operating within the bounds of the Egyptian constitution and not “recognizing the authority of Shari’a.” Likewise, Al Fajr Media Center, the official network responsible for disseminating messages from al Qaeda factions, released an audio tape in August 2010 called “Manufacturing Terrorism” that stated the following: “The Muslim Brotherhood thinks that democracy is the path to take [for change], while jihadi groups believe the path is through jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, in reality, is an Islamist social movement that represents a wide spectrum of political ideology. Many of its younger members advocate for a Western-style democracy and would likely welcome continued cooperation with the United States. Many of the Brotherhood’s “old guard,” however, adhere to a much more rigid interpretation of Islam and would likely shun close relations with the United States

Read more: Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt are overblown The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

====================
As Beck, O'Reilly and other screamers aren't experts, I thought I'd find an expert's opinion.
About the author.

Chris Harnisch is an al Qaeda analyst focusing primarily on Yemen and Somalia. He has briefed members of the House and the Senate on issues relating to Yemen and Somalia, and he has published articles on the Islamist threat in those countries in numerous publications. Chris served on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. He has lived and studied in Yemen and Egypt.

Read more: Fears of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt are overblown The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

 

[Synthaholic]

Strange thing is, every single Tea Party supporter I personally know were ardent Bush supporters. And I believe would elect him again if they could.

Well you must not have met many of them. I supported the Tea Party, and I was not a "Ardent" supporter of Bush, and Would not vote for him again.

But don't let that fact get in the way of your own version of Reality.

Umm...that's not my post.

 

[Synthaholic]

I haven't been on this board long, but why does LibocalypseNow pretend to be a Ron Paul supporter and someone who cares about the Constitution while at the same time demanding a neoconservative interventionist foreign policy towards Iran, which is clearly unconstitutional?

On what planet is war unconstitutional?

I'll be honest I included an assumption, I'm assuming a potential war wouldn't be declared a war by Congress which the Constitution says must happen.

Not really an unfair assumption though, every war post world war 2 has been unconstituional so the next one likely will too.

That said, Dr. Paul would insist on following the Constitution and getting Congressional to declare war.

 

[Synthaholic]

On what planet is war unconstitutional?

I'll be honest I included an assumption, I'm assuming a potential war wouldn't be declared a war by Congress which the Constitution says must happen.

Not really an unfair assumption though, every war post world war 2 has been unconstituional so the next one likely will too.

Congress' defacto declaration comes when they pass the budget funding the war.

The Constitution does not allow for "defacto" anything.

 

[Londoner]

Q: What is always the #1 reason given by terrorists?
A: U.S. interference in the Middle East.

Q: Why do we "interfere"?
A: Oil

Period. It's not about helping an oppressed people rise up. There are plenty of places in the world without oil where we could do that if we wanted.

1951: US and Saudi Arabia sign a mutual defense agreement, with the U.S. building military bases in the kingdom and establishing a long-term agreement to train the Saudi armed forces.

1953: USA helps overthrow Iran's democratically elected government - replacing the wildly popular Mosaddeq with the ruthless Shaw, who was a western puppet, i.e., friendly to US energy needs.

United States protects the ruthless Shaw against his own people, causing the the further radicalization of anti-American Islamic groups -- which reached a tipping point with American hostage situation in the late 70s

1972-1975: US Weapons aid to Saudi Arabia goes from $305 million to $5 billion

United States protects the ruthless Saudis for over a half century. This serves to fuel resentment against the US and leads to the formation and radicalization of Islamic groups against the US

1970's: Carter begs America to reduce dependency on middle east. Begs us not to spend the next 30 years making terrorist richer. Says we need to launch a moonshot around alternative energy and conservation. Reagan, funded by big oil, frames him as a crazy, radical lefty.

1980: Reagan wins the presidency, removes Iraq from the list of terrorist nations and sells arms to Iran

America swallowed poison in 1980

1980-1986: Reagan plays decisive role in the rise and protection Saddam Hussein: As a counterweight to Khomeinist Iran, Reagan builds up Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- removing him from the list of terrorist nations, and pouring money and weapons into his regime. This further radicalizes region against the US and the unpopular leaders it protects.

2011: Glen Beck tries to cover-up what his party did by blaming everything on radical lefties. Ignores entire history of US tinkering -- especially Reagan, Bush, & the party of Big Oil who have done more to tie the US to the region than any political group in the past 50 years. Beck's moronic listeners believe what he says

 

[KissMy]

Q: What is always the #1 reason given by terrorists?
A: U.S. interference in the Middle East.

Q: Why do we "interfere"?
A: Oil

Period. It's not about helping an oppressed people rise up. There are plenty of places in the world without oil where we could do that if we wanted.

1951: US and Saudi Arabia sign a mutual defense agreement, with the U.S. building military bases in the kingdom and establishing a long-term agreement to train the Saudi armed forces.

1953: USA helps overthrow Iran's democratically elected government - replacing the wildly popular Mosaddeq with the ruthless Shaw, who was a western puppet, i.e., friendly to US energy needs.

United States protects the ruthless Shaw against his own people, causing the the further radicalization of anti-American Islamic groups -- which reached a tipping point with American hostage situation in the late 70s

1972-1975: US Weapons aid to Saudi Arabia goes from $305 million to $5 billion

United States protects the ruthless Saudis for over a half century. This serves to fuel resentment against the US and leads to the formation and radicalization of Islamic groups against the US

1970's: Carter begs America to reduce dependency on middle east. Begs us not to spend the next 30 years making terrorist richer. Says we need to launch a moonshot around alternative energy and conservation. Reagan, funded by big oil, frames him as a crazy, radical lefty.

1980: Reagan wins the presidency, removes Iraq from the list of terrorist nations and sells arms to Iran

America swallowed poison in 1980

1980-1986: Reagan plays decisive role in the rise and protection Saddam Hussein: As a counterweight to Khomeinist Iran, Reagan builds up Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- removing him from the list of terrorist nations, and pouring money and weapons into his regime. This further radicalizes region against the US and the unpopular leaders it protects.

2011: Glen Beck tries to cover-up what his party did by blaming everything on radical lefties. Ignores entire history of US tinkering -- especially Reagan, Bush, & the party of Big Oil who have done more to tie the US to the region than any political group in the past 50 years. Beck's moronic listeners believe what he says

So what day did you become oil free & begin to live the rest of your life without oil?

 

[saveliberty]

I'll be honest I included an assumption, I'm assuming a potential war wouldn't be declared a war by Congress which the Constitution says must happen.

Not really an unfair assumption though, every war post world war 2 has been unconstituional so the next one likely will too.

Congress' defacto declaration comes when they pass the budget funding the war.

The Constitution does not allow for "defacto" anything.

We have defacto social programs.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Congress' defacto declaration comes when they pass the budget funding the war.

The Constitution does not allow for "defacto" anything.

We have defacto social programs.

Which are also unconstitutional, just like the income taxes that pay for most of them.

Both the mainstream parties just need to completely drop the words "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" from their p-r rhetoric. They have for the most part until it gets convenient to use, but the reality is neither side and their voters really care too much about it.

I was just pointing out how I was surprised that someone would pretend to support Ron Paul while not taking the Constitution seriously. Most people who don't take the Constitution seriously think of Ron Paul as a "kook."

 

[Dr.Drock]

I haven't been on this board long, but why does LibocalypseNow pretend to be a Ron Paul supporter and someone who cares about the Constitution while at the same time demanding a neoconservative interventionist foreign policy towards Iran, which is clearly unconstitutional?

On what planet is war unconstitutional?

On the planet of Liberal lala Land where the US can only take Military action of Any kind if they first have the Full congress Officially Declare war.

The Constitution Clearly Gives the Executive branch the power to commit us Forces to action Anywhere anytime in order to Protect the National Security of the US. Offical Deceleration of war or not.

These same liberal dim Wits who act say this shit. Would be completely silent if Obama did the same thing.

Most of the wars the US has been a part of in the last half century have been very liberal, thus requiring the supporters of these wars to be very liberal in their views.

Sadly yes most people who pretended to be anti-war were really just Democrats who were anti-Bush. The principle of war and innocent people being killed wasn't really a big deal to the overwhelming majority.

So the things we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq again, Vietnam, Korea, were just small military actions? They shouldn't be called "wars"?

 

[Cuyo]

He Dreams up his "dot connecting" and that it's all "working in unison" and coming to GET YOUR WAY OF LIFE!! BOOOO!

Beck is a pussy, or at least he promotes being one.

How about you try proving him wrong.

I've listened to him for over 10 yrs and most all of his predictions on this stuff are right.
He asks us to question with boldness, and I always do, and it always checks turns out pretty close to how he says it is.

You sir just dont know your history very well, and you just dont like Glenn Beck.

Beck's an idiot. If you watch him and take him seriously... Well that would make you an idiot too, wouldn't it?

 

[bodecea]

You either believe democracy is the best from of government or you dont.

I believe it is the best from of government,

I am amazed at how many on the right only think its good for us and then its only good when THEY get what they want.

If we were a true democracy, then according to USCit and Bod, we'd be a christian theocracy dear, and there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I don't think there's a better example of you just posting your shit without reading what others have said than this post right here.

 

[bodecea]

You mean like when you never answered how Saturday was a holiday?? Not even close.

Who said Saturday was a holiday? (blatant deflection attempt noted)

holiday = A holy day? Why is there no school on Saturday?

There's no deflection to note, the subject of democracy has been clearly addressed very well by others in the thread, so why would I repeat them?

Some places have school on Saturday. And I have never said that Saturday was a holiday....so once again, your deflection attempt is noted and answered and once again, you prove that you never really read other people's posts....you just rant on, replying to things people only said in your imagination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Global mobility means that we cannot ignore the threat of terrorism...and cannot underestimate the aid that Middle Eastern countries have provided in the War On Terrorism. How can we tell governments how they must handle internal situations, and expect their help?

Q: What is always the #1 reason given by terrorists?
A: U.S. interference in the Middle East.

Q: Why do we "interfere"?
A: Oil

Period. It's not about helping an oppressed people rise up. There are plenty of places in the world without oil where we could do that if we wanted.

Get off the oil, and QUICKLY. Even if it costs a lot in the short term. Devalue the Middle East. Make these rulers deal with their reality and their citizenry. It's disgusting that even a lower-level Saudi like Prince Bandar can be so fucking rich from our oil habit that he can buy a place like the Hala Ranch, in Aspen, CO - currently on the market for $135 million.

Third-richest property in the United States. And just one of his many properties, including estates in England.

#1 is incorrect. To you understand the meaning and import of the word 'calphate'?

But let's deal with #2. Once reality sets in, and you understand that without oil this nation will cedase to exist, then the options seem pretty evident.

Unless you belong to the 'can't we all just get along' battalion...

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the majority vote for Hamas then it is democracy at work.
Do you even know what democracy is?

They say that war is God's way of teaching folks geography...

but haven't the events and the posts on the board taught you that there is no definition of democracy without defining the venue, as well?

"One shouldn’t cherry-pick facts to fit an agenda. The study does say that radicals “believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do.” But does anyone really think we’re operating with a consistent definition of democracy here? The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, makes claims to be democratic, yet its leaders-for-life are not elected, the organization boasts a doctrine of female subordination, and it calls for the death of apostates. Kind of a big-government democracy, I suppose."

Commentary Blog Archive Muslim Survey “Challenges” West

uscitizen was talking about the democratically elected Hamas, not the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

When you are as far behind the class in required reading, it becomes difficult to include you in the discussion....

"Berman describes the Nazi plan (in which Husseini would play a key role) for the physical destruction of the Jewish community in Palestine after Rommel’s expected victory at El-Alamein. Rommel’s defeat aborted the plan, but al-Banna’s Muslim Brotherhood fought side by side with the mufti’s cadres in the 1948 Arab and Palestinian war against Israel with the same goal of destruction in mind. The Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well today, with hundreds of thousands of followers in many parts of the world. In Gaza, the movement is called Hamas, and its charter mimes the World War II symbiosis between Nazi eliminationist anti-Semitism and radical Islamism."
The Intellectuals Keep Flying by Sol Stern, City Journal 21 October 2010

You and your 'thank you' brethren need to pick up a book from time to time, educate yourself.

Iran, Hamas, Brotherhood, Hezbullah, etcc....are essentially all the same.

It is a distinction without a difference.


After you do your due diligence, you many want to rethink assigning terms like 'democratic' to any of the above groups.

 

[BlindBoo]

I haven't been on this board long, but why does LibocalypseNow pretend to be a Ron Paul supporter and someone who cares about the Constitution while at the same time demanding a neoconservative interventionist foreign policy towards Iran, which is clearly unconstitutional?

On what planet is war unconstitutional?

From 2002

Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War by Rep. Ron Paul

"A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn't permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn't a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it's difficult to claim that we're going into Iraq to restore peace.

History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities.

The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur — what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown."

 

[saveliberty]

I'm for Egyptian self determination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oil is the life's blood of a modern society. There is no possible way to replace its loss. What ever course we choose, we must have oil.

Doesn't have to be that way.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to watch the Egyptians in a purely voyeuristic sense? Without worrying about how it's going to affect us, through oil?

Right now, the actions of poor, ignorant, societal and socially stunted people are making our gas prices to go up, our food to go up, our everything to go up. And the Egyptians don't even have the oil!!! That's fucked up.

It's time we get serious about solar, hydro, wind, natural gas and anything else that will get us out of the Middle East.

"Doesn't have to be that way."

Yeah, it does.

Although it is clear than many folks, yourself included, enjoy living in that special 'world as we would like it to be," consider the following:

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

2. Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

3. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces made it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Now, if you have incorporated the factual info contained in the above, you will agree that oil will continue to be the potent determinor of our future for the foreseeable future...so, how does this change your thingking?

Hint: How about drilling in ANWR?

 

[PoliticalChic]

All a terrorist has to do is blow up a couple or 3 ships to screw up the canal for a while.
Can you imagine how far burning oil from a tanker would go in the canal?

And only a couple of ships sunk would block the canal.

Looks like you're tipping your hat to Mubarak.