DescentBB

So here we are, 30 some years past Jimmy \"the Rabbit\" Carters failed presidency and we are having a \"Run Rabbit Run Redux\" moment. Another middle eastern country we have strong ties with has fallen into anarchy while Obama tries to squeak out of two sides of his mouth at once. Like Carter, Obama is backing the uprising, which is seemingly controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood...much like Carter backed the Ayatollahs in Iran.

Now the question I ask you, what are your thoughts on how this will all play out. Will Egypt turn into a democratic country once they oust Mubarak. Or will they fall sway to Islamic extremism like Iran did? In this exercise, we will be able to to see the results of your opinions play out in the coming months.

I think we will see another Iran. The Egyptian people think they are getting rid of a hated dictator but will find themselves with a government far worse than what they had. Time will tell. Hope I'm wrong.

mmm Kool-aid.

I havnt developed an opinion on the Egyptian uprising, but on a related note, China has been caught basically removing any and all traces of the uprising from their official news and social networking networks. I suppose they don't want the Chinese realizing if they ever did the same thing on a large, national scale, they might finally shrug off the oppression thats been holding them back.

I've had enough of these fundamentalist Islamo-fascists.
Lets take the Iranian embassy staff hostage and have Ayatollah AHole trade arms to South Korea in exchange for their release resulting in a counter culture insurgency into their political leadership throwing them off track for decades ultimately causing the election of some half infidel with no proof of citizenship becoming the new Ayatollah who is hell bent on wrecking the foundation of their revolution!! And make them take Nickleback as part of the package while we are at it!!

woodchip wrote:Obama is backing the uprising

I hope not. That part of the world doesn't normally change for the better, into new democracies. Though my current knowledge of that area is lacking...

This could be serious. To nobody's surprise, the Israelis are paying attention to these events.

If the MB takes over, after either steamrolling ElBaradei or leaving him in an effectively ceremonial presidency as a disinformation mouthpiece to outside parties, then the whole dynamic of the Middle East could change, and very rapidly. Obama better be prepared. The MB is also stirring up things in Jordan. How many carriers do we now have in the Mediterranean?

Considering our strong ties to both Egypt and Israel, this could become very interesting if the MB tries to hijack the revolt and turn Egypt into a islamnofacist state that is strongly anti-American. The only ray of sunshine is the Egyptian military which is linked closely with the American military (financial aid and joint military exercises) and does not seem to be on par with the Iranian republican guard.

As Dissent points out, Jordan is facing unrest and I'd have to think King Faud in Saudi Arabia is a bit nervous. Seems the middle easterners are getting fed up with autocratic rule.

Wasn't it \"A Crack In Time\", not \"A Stitch In Time\"?

Very good game by the way.

I've actually been to Egypt and some of the sites they are talking about having rioting/etc so I actually find the whole situation fairly alarming.

Xamindar wrote:Wasn't it "A Crack In Time", not "A Stitch In Time"?

Very good game by the way.

I thought we were talking about "A Wrinkle in Time," the book.

Tweet
\"2147 Not to be outdone, former US President Jimmy Carter has had a say as well. The current situation was \"the most profound situation in the Middle East\" since he left office in 1981, Mr Carter told a Sunday school audience in the US state of Georgia.\"

For the love of all that is holy, please Jimmy....don't get involved.

woodchip wrote:Tweet
"2147 Not to be outdone, former US President Jimmy Carter has had a say as well. The current situation was "the most profound situation in the Middle East" since he left office in 1981, Mr Carter told a Sunday school audience in the US state of Georgia."

For the love of all that is holy, please Jimmy....don't get involved.

He was tweeting an opinion, not asking the involved parties to talk to him as a negotiator or something.

Avder wrote:

woodchip wrote:Tweet
"2147 Not to be outdone, former US President Jimmy Carter has had a say as well. The current situation was "the most profound situation in the Middle East" since he left office in 1981, Mr Carter told a Sunday school audience in the US state of Georgia."

For the love of all that is holy, please Jimmy....don't get involved.

He was tweeting an opinion, not asking the involved parties to talk to him as a negotiator or something.

Aw, you know how ole "Lusty" operates. A comment here, a comment there and pretty soon he'll be jetting on over to Egypt thinking he will single handed bring peace and democracy. I wonder if Jimmy knows his buddy Anwar Sadat was murdered 30 years ago and is no longer in power.

Not that anyone could have a real handle on the situation now, but Obama is failing in a very \"Carteresque\" way. He is assuming the secular democratic elements of the uprising will have an actual say in the final government. This is fatally wrong and this could plunge the entire world into chaos- not because of the \"wave\" of uprisings in the ME, but because of the Suez canal. This is Iran X 10. Oil will go insane and collapse any hope of economic recovery.

Depression and possibly war will follow.

An 82 year old dictator in a foreign country will never be missed as much as Mubarak when things are all said and done. He was a tyrant, but a teddy bear next to what may replace him.

BTW, not to be an alarmist- but get ready to stock up on your wheaties and bottled water. Keep an eye on oil prices because that will determine how bad things get.

People are fleeing as if there were some kind of nasty badness is coming:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110130/D9L2SEEO0.html

ThunderBunny wrote:Not that anyone could have a real handle on the situation now, but Obama is failing in a very "Carteresque" way. He is assuming the secular democratic elements of the uprising will have an actual say in the final government. This is fatally wrong and this could plunge the entire world into chaos- not because of the "wave" of uprisings in the ME, but because of the Suez canal. This is Iran X 10. Oil will go insane and collapse any hope of economic recovery.

Depression and possibly war will follow.

An 82 year old dictator in a foreign country will never be missed as much as Mubarak when things are all said and done. He was a tyrant, but a teddy bear next to what may replace him.

BTW, not to be an alarmist- but get ready to stock up on your wheaties and bottled water. Keep an eye on oil prices because that will determine how bad things get.

Um...you do know that most shipping companies now find it cheaper to just sail around Africa than pay the duties for usage of the Suez Canal, right? It's hardly the vital link it was a few decades ago. But hey, don't let me stop you from showing off your newest model of tinfoil hat.

Top Gun wrote:Um...you do know that most shipping companies now find it cheaper to just sail around Africa than pay the duties for usage of the Suez Canal, right?

Only a very recent thing, and only because of Somali pirates.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/11/a ... ez_112508/

Well yes, but the fact remains. And besides, there's been absolutely no evidence that the eventual outcome of what's happening will impact the Canal's accessibility. Egypt is too dependent upon it as a source of income to jeopardize its long-term stability.

Well Top Gun, you may want to re-assess your statement:

\"A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”\"

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

Top Gun wrote:Well yes, but the fact remains. And besides, there's been absolutely no evidence that the eventual outcome of what's happening will impact the Canal's accessibility. Egypt is too dependent upon it as a source of income to jeopardize its long-term stability.

History shows the people of that region have a habit of ignoring logic.

woodchip wrote:"A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

Oh boy, one whacko makes an extremist statement. Yup, I'm completely reneging on what I said.

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Well yes, but the fact remains. And besides, there's been absolutely no evidence that the eventual outcome of what's happening will impact the Canal's accessibility. Egypt is too dependent upon it as a source of income to jeopardize its long-term stability.

History shows the people of that region have a habit of ignoring logic.

Funny, I could say the same about this folder.

If nothing changes, islamists will be taking over Egypt. War will follow.

ThunderBunny wrote:If nothing changes, islamists will be taking over Egypt. War will follow.

Um...no. To either point.

I still haven't met a muslim who wasn't generally peaceful. The only exception was those two airport security guys. So I guess that means they were TSA. :P Not that I've known a lot of muslims. ^_~

Yet for some reason, a little birdie over my shoulder tries to tell me that I have to be afraid of Osama bin Fakin the dead terrorist and that because he's going to destroy the universe, the birdie has to molest me before I fly.

The point to remember is that the current overall state of the Middle East has very little to do with Islam as a particular religion and very much to do with how that part of the world turned out over the past few centuries. Any given set of beliefs would have been likewise radicalized given the social conditions there. I mean, hell, the Islamic caliphate during its Golden Age was benevolent to practitioners of other faiths even by modern standards, certainly far more so than their European contemporaries. It's all a question of environment.

the current overall state of the Middle East has very little to do with Islam

Ignorance talking.

ITT TB employs selective editing and apparently didn't even read the whole post.

Keep going, man, I can do this all week.

Top Gun wrote:The point to remember is that the current overall state of the Middle East has very little to do with Islam as a particular religion and very much to do with how that part of the world turned out over the past few centuries. Any given set of beliefs would have been likewise radicalized given the social conditions there. I mean, hell, the Islamic caliphate during its Golden Age was benevolent to practitioners of other faiths even by modern standards, certainly far more so than their European contemporaries. It's all a question of environment.

I think TB is actually right in this case, ignorance talking. Of course they were "benevolent" to other religions in their golden age, they weren't a threat because Islam was strong back then. They had strong armies, they had advanced banking systems and government and so on. They were a very, if not the most, advanced civilization during the golden age of Islam. They were comfortable.

But that doesn't mean their religion didn't change, they just didn't need to act out that way to have control, they already had it. You trying to excuse that religion because they were once powerful and didn't act out terrorism when in that state is very flawed.

Xamindar wrote:I think TB is actually right in this case, ignorance talking. Of course they were "benevolent" to other religions in their golden age, they weren't a threat because Islam was strong back then. They had strong armies, they had advanced banking systems and government and so on. They were a very, if not the most, advanced civilization during the golden age of Islam. They were comfortable.

But that doesn't mean their religion didn't change, they just didn't need to act out that way to have control, they already had it. You trying to excuse that religion because they were once powerful and didn't act out terrorism when in that state is very flawed.

And your trying to blame general extremism on the tenets of one particular religion shows far more ignorance. Seriously, go talk to someone who actually knows their way around sociology and human behavior. See what they have to say. I can guarantee they'll tell you that there's nothing unique about Islam that drives people to kill other people. One need only look at such examples as the Crusades and the Irish Republican Army to see how extremism can drive even Christianity, one of whose fundamental principles is "love thy enemy," to violence and terrorism. It's not a function of the specific beliefs themselves, but instead the societal conditions that allow said beliefs to be warped into extremism. The Middle East has essentially been shat upon by the western world for the past few centuries, and the corresponding rise in extremist fundamentalist Islam is a direct result of that.

Hell, in a sense, the point you made proves itself. The caliphate was a pretty damn nice place to live during its Golden Age, and the extremism we see today didn't exist precisely because of that. Modern-day Turkey is another example, where Ataturk's reforms after the founding of the Republic of Turkey allowed for a secularized society to develop.

Top gun a counter point to your point is Iran. Do we want all of the middle East to wind up like Iran in the hope that the middle east will be a fine place to live if you are non Muslim? Correct me if I'm wrong but did not a \"Unified Caliphate\" lead to the crusades with the Muslim invading up into Spain and threatening the Euro kingdoms?

Iran actually proves my example entirely, as the oppressive conditions imposed by the Shah where what enabled the development of a strong radical fundamentalist Islamic culture that culminated in the Revolution. Take away the pressures imposed by the Shah's autocracy, and I think it's very likely that said culture wouldn't have developed in Iran, or that it would be far less influential than it is today.

And yes, while the Caliphate did undertake territorial expansion, that was sort of the norm for any large empire at the time. Indeed, the Crusades were essentially European monarchs using religious zealotry as an excuse to undertake the exact same expansion. And given how crappy living conditions were in much of Europe at the time, one wonders if your average peasant wouldn't have been better off under Caliphate rule anyway.

A chilling analysis and possible repeat of history in the making perhaps:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/as-we ... icate.html