USA backing Islamic uprising?

[Mr.Fitnah]

2/3rds of the people in Egypt are under 30 years old, they live on the internet because of the tight control of religion in these areas.

They dont want shria law they wnat democracy.

Why is the right so affraid of democracy?


Democracy will save this world not destroy it.

Obama doesn't understand Islam just like the left doesn't understand the tea party.
The Tea party want a Constitutional government.
Muslims want sharia, not freedom.

"What's needed now are concrete steps that advance the rights of the Egyptian people, a meaningful dialogue between the government and its citizens and a path of political change that leads to a future of greater freedom and greater opportunity and justice for the Egyptian people," Obama added.

Obama tells Mubarak to deliver promised reforms | Reuters

American Thinker: The Muslim Mainstream and the New Caliphate

A sobering reminder—based upon hard data—from an essay of mine published in April, 2007:American Thinker: The Muslim Mainstream and the New Caliphate

In a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ WorldPublicOpinion.org interview survey of 1000 Egyptian Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007, 67% of those interviewed-more than 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”-desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”).

The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 74% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

 

[Truthmatters]

So does that mean you dont think Obama is a secret Muslim anymore?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Democracy is mob rule not a republic like we have, its just majority rule and the majority wants or can be made to want sharia law.
Terrorism and intimidation works.
Islam requires sharia rule .

 

[BlackAsCoal]

2/3rds of the people in Egypt are under 30 years old, they live on the internet because of the tight control of religion in these areas.

They dont want shria law they wnat democracy.

Why is the right so affraid of democracy?


Democracy will save this world not destroy it.

Not our brand of it.

Our brand of democracy can't even save us.

The giant hole in democracy is money .. and he who has it owns the democracy. Just like here in America.

That won't work.

 

[Truthmatters]

Democracy is what a repubic is.

You are thinking of what is called a direct democracy or a pure democracy.


Democracy is NOT a dirty word no matter how many times you refuse the definitions of words.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

this has nothing to do with religion. Please at least read the reasons behind the riots before making dumb assumptions.

 

[Truthmatters]

2/3rds of the people in Egypt are under 30 years old, they live on the internet because of the tight control of religion in these areas.

They dont want shria law they wnat democracy.

Why is the right so affraid of democracy?


Democracy will save this world not destroy it.

Not our brand of it.

Our brand of democracy can't even save us.

The giant hole in democracy is money .. and he who has it owns the democracy. Just like here in America.

That won't work.

Democracy gives the power to the people to reign in the powers.

Many on the right just do the bidding of these powers you fear because they have been hoodwinked into some silly mind set by these very poweres.

Democracy will save this world.

 

[Truthmatters]

this has nothing to do with religion. Please at least read the reasons behind the riots before making dumb assumptions.

They have been taught to fear arabic people no matter what they do.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

2/3rds of the people in Egypt are under 30 years old, they live on the internet because of the tight control of religion in these areas.

They dont want shria law they wnat democracy.

Why is the right so affraid of democracy?


Democracy will save this world not destroy it.

Not our brand of it.

Our brand of democracy can't even save us.

The giant hole in democracy is money .. and he who has it owns the democracy. Just like here in America.

That won't work.

Democracy gives the power to the people to reign in the powers.

Many on the right just do the bidding of these powers you fear because they have been hoodwinked into some silly mind set by these very poweres.

Democracy will save this world.

Democracy often only gives the illusion of power. The seat of power in America is the boardroom, not the Oval Office .. which is only the representation of power.

Democrats are no different when it comes to doing the bidding of the real power. The biggest beneficiaries of Obama's term has been Wall Street and the banking industry by far, hands down .. who also just happen to be the same elements that showered him in money during his election. That "small donor" bullshit was the illusion. He got 1% more from small donors then George Bush did in 2004.

From the House to the Senate to the presidency, our government is owned by the corporate will.

We call it "contributions" .. everywhere else it's called corruption.

 

[whitehall]

It does seem so. Our entire media (including FOX) is now criticizing the "former regime". Hillary is busy covering her own ass and the president is as confusing as Harvaad lawyers tend to be when they don't want to take a stand on an issue. There seems to be little question that the jihad world is up to it's eyballs in the revolution and if it succeeds in toppling the government the world is less secure.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Democracy is what a repubic is.

You are thinking of what is called a direct democracy or a pure democracy.


Democracy is NOT a dirty word no matter how many times you refuse the definitions of words.

Ok. You're an idiot.You win.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Democracy in the ME? It would be nice if it were true but the rads, nuts, extremists, are always waiting to fill the vacuum. I would love to see a real democracy but it justo ain't happening over there. The problem is that the ones who actually want peace and some sort of democracy are not organized. The terror groups, brotherhoods, nutjobs, are organized. They tend to set back and then pounce when opportunities arise.

Anyway, it should be a world of fun if the wacknuts get control of the Suez Canal.

 

[Flopper]

Why would the US back this uprising? We have supported Mubarak for many years and consider Egypt and ally. When the people rise up to overthrow a government, nobody knows for sure just what the new government will look like or who they will align themselves with. Clearly there is quite a bit of resentment in Egypt directed toward American because of it's support for Mubarak.

Considering that Egypt boarders Israel and the US close ties to Israel, I doubt the US would want to rock the boat. We already have two wars going that we desperately want out of.

Probably because Mubarak stopped playing ball with the United States in some fashion. Isn't that why the U.S. reneged on the friendship between Saddam Hussain and with Noriega?

As that indolent puke Henry Kissinger stated: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."

The last thing the US government wants is more instability in the near east. The two wars we have now are killing us financially. Involving ourselves in the internal strife in Egypt would be pretty dumb.

 

[RadiomanATL]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog[/ame]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Iran Sees Rise of Islamic Hard-Liners


TEHRAN — Hopeful that the protests sweeping Arab lands may create an opening for hard-line Islamic forces, conservatives in Iran are taking deep satisfaction in the events in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, where secular leaders have faced large-scale uprisings.

While the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confronted its own popular uprising two years ago — and successfully suppressed it — conservatives in Iran said they saw little similarity between those events and the Arab revolts, and instead likened the recent upheavals to Iran’s own 1979 Islamic revolution.

“In my opinion, the Islamic Republic of Iran should see these events without exception in a positive light,” said Mohammad-Javad Larijani, secretary general of the Iranian High Council for Human Rights and one of the most outspoken figures among Iran’s traditional conservatives.

He made it clear that he hoped that the “anti-Islamic” government of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who was ousted in Tunisia, would be replaced by a “people’s government,” meaning one in which conservative Islamic forces would gain the upper hand, as they did when Iranian people overthrew Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, establishing a quasi-theocracy.

On the other side are the United States and France, he said, who are “doing everything they can to ride the wave and prevent the people from establishing the regime that they desire.”

“I am more optimistic about Egypt,” Mr. Larijani said in comments published Friday on the Web site Khabar Online, which is closely linked to his brother, Ali Larijani, the Parliament speaker.

“There, Muslims are more active in political agitation and, God willing, they will establish the regime that they want,” Mohammad-Javad Larijani said.

Some here have even echoed the pan-Islamic rhetoric of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?_r=2&hp

The Times needs to limit shoveling, their Right Wing BULLSHIT, to the U.S.!!!!

 

[Trajan]

I'm betting that the powers that be in the US are preparing to deal with whoever turns out to be the victor. We're probably supporting more than one dog in this fight anyway. Does anyone think we have a single minded approach to foreign affairs ?

nope, back in 03-05 bush tried to shift Mubarak inot a more 'democratic' stance and he was pretty much shut down by the pro's at foggy Bottom....*shrugs*....this is actually a lose lose for us.Been livin' on borrowed time, but thats always the case when we back an SOB.

 

[Londoner]

America helped put the ruthless, terrorist-funding Shaw in power because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs. America has been in bed with the ruthless Saudis for over 1/2 a century - a terrorist haven if there ever was one. [Do Republicans know how much Reagan increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia? How is it possible that an entire block of Americans is kept in a hermetically sealed talk radio bubble?] When our guy in Iran, the Shaw, was chased out of the country, we shifted our support to a new brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. This is when Reagan had Iraq and Hussein removed from the list of terrorist nations. America provided weapons, protection, and funding to this monster during some of his worst atrocities. Once Iran-Contra came to light, it was clear that Reagan was cultivating back-channel alliances across the board. Reagan also supported the mujahideen (a terrorist cell which later splintered into Al Qauda) against the Russians in Afghanistan.

This stuff isn't lies. Our alliance with the brutal terrorist Shaw is not in dispute. Reagan's removal of Iraq & Hussein from the list of terrorist nations is on the record, along with the weapons support provided to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and whole hose of terrorist cells who were used for various regional purposes.

The poor right wing voter. He is constantly fed horror stories about Chinese communists and Iranian terrorists. Meanwhile his dear leaders have done everything possible to strengthen these groups, building the entire US economy from Chinese credit and terrorist crude.

It's a sick joke.

Ask a Republican voter about Mossadegh or Pinochet or any policy specifics about Reagan's approach to South America, the Caribbean theater, and the Middle East and you will get a blank stare. They will just repeat empty slogans about how freedom is on the march, and evil empires.

These people vote, and they're getting their history from a Washington political machine.

 

[dilloduck]

America helped put the ruthless, terrorist-funding Shaw in power because he was more willing to play ball with western energy needs. America has been in bed with the ruthless Saudis for over 1/2 a century - a terrorist haven if there ever was one. [Do Republicans know how much Reagan increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia? How is it possible that an entire block of Americans is kept in a hermetically sealed talk radio bubble?] When our guy in Iran, the Shaw, was chased out of the country, we shifted our support to a new brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. This is when Reagan had Iraq and Hussein removed from the list of terrorist nations. America provided weapons, protection, and funding to this monster during some of his worst atrocities. Once Iran-Contra came to light, it was clear that Reagan was cultivating back-channel alliances across the board. Reagan also supported the mujahideen (a cell which later splintered into Al Qauda) against the Russians in Afghanistan.

This stuff isn't lies. Our alliance with the brutal terrorist Shaw is not in dispute. Reagan's removal of Iraq & Hussein from the list of terrorist nations is on the record, along with the weapons support provided to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and whole hose of terrorist cells who were used for various regional purposes.

The poor right wing voter. He is constantly fed horror stories about Chinese communists and Iranian terrorists. Meanwhile his dear leaders have done everything possible to strengthen these groups, building the entire US economy from Chinese credit and terrorist crude.

It's a sick joke.

Ask a Republican voter about Mossadegh or Pinochet or any policy specifics about Reagan's approach to South America, the Caribbean theater, and the Middle East and you will get a blank stare. They will just repeat empty slogans about how freedom is on the march, and evil empires.

These people vote, and they're getting their history from a Washington political machine.

I'll make you a deal-----tell me who you like in the 2012 elections and I'll vote for them.
Don't call us stupid when we have only stupid to vote for.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm betting that the powers that be in the US are preparing to deal with whoever turns out to be the victor. We're probably supporting more than one dog in this fight anyway. Does anyone think we have a single minded approach to foreign affairs ?

nope, back in 03-05 bush tried to shift Mubarak inot a more 'democratic' stance and he was pretty much shut down by the pro's at foggy Bottom....*shrugs*....this is actually a lose lose for us.Been livin' on borrowed time, but thats always the case when we back an SOB.

Sorta like backin any of our own presidents.

 

[Londoner]

Reagan and the cultivation of terrorist power to fight the Soviets:

"In 1985 Reagan sent Senator Orrin Hatch, Undersecretary of Defense Fred Iklé and others to Beijing to ask China to put pressure on Pakistan to allow the US to give the Muslim radicals, such as Hikmatyar, more sophisticated weapons. Hatch succeeded in this mission.

By giving the Muj weaponry like the stinger shoulderheld missile, which could destroy advanced Soviet arms like their helicopter gunships, Reagan demonstrated to the radical Muslims that they could defeat a super power"