Friedman Cheers as Egyptians Are Enslaved
Professor: [As the Martian ambassador starts disintegrating congressmen with his ray gun]: “Mr. Ambassador, please! What are you doing? This doesn’t make sense! It’s not logical! It’s not !” – Mars Attacks
It is distasteful when Western intellectuals, politicians, and journalists who pride themselves on their enlightened, humanitarian views watch people abroad fall subject to ruthless forces of dictatorship and dogma. When these same people actually cheer the new tyrannies, put their arms around the shoulders of those who despise them, and tell everyone else that there’s nothing to worry about, that’s actively disgusting.
Many in the West have so acted toward Egypt during the last year. They have previously done so toward the Gaza Strip, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. Perhaps no one has touted these ideas and policies more loudly and enthusiastically than Thomas Friedman has been one of them but In doing so, of course, he has echoed U.S. government policy.
Now, Friedman goes all-out to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t radical, isn’t a threat, in fact is a good thing, and will only become even more moderate once it is in power.
In a column called “Watching Elephants Fly” — obviously a reference to seeing something impossible happen — Friedman writes,
Here is what was so striking: virtually all the women we interviewed after the voting — all of whom were veiled, some with only slits for their eyes — said that they had voted for either the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafists. But almost none said they had voted that way for religious reasons.
Many said they voted for Islamists because they were neighbors, people they knew, while secular liberal candidates had never once visited. Some illiterate elderly women confided that they could not read the ballot and just voted where their kids told them to. But practically all of them said they had voted for the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist candidates because they expected them to deliver better, more honest government — not more mosques or liquor bans.
My reaction is, “So what?” They voted for an authoritarian, Sharia regime (and let’s remember a hardline interpretation of Sharia, not the interpretation of Sharia offered by New York Times reporters). That’s what’s important. People also had diverse reasons for supporting Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. Indeed, they always voted for such regimes because “they expected them to deliver better, more honest government.” Hasn’t Friedman ever heard that Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler built the autobahns, and the Communists promised to give land to the peasants?
But there’s even more irony here. These women are already living lives governed by Sharia and, as traditionalists, are happy (and told to be happy) with that situation. Thus, they have ample reason for supporting Islamists. There is nothing surprising in their political behavior, except to people like Friedman who predicted last year they would back liberal, Westernized Facebook kids.
Once again, Friedman shows a striking inability to think logically. If women were voting on the basis of family orders — I’d bet on the husbands and fathers rather than the children so instructing them — how can he then say that they voted because of specific personal motives or (after reporting they were told what to do!) claim that their vote is a sign of freedom?
Why are all their neighbors Islamists? Because there are so few secular liberals they’ve never actually met one. A large portion of the voters for non-Islamist parties were Christians, who they’d never socialize with. And their Brotherhood and Salafist neighbors want an Islamist dictator?
As for “more mosques” being the supposed Islamist demand that they “reject” it shows ignorance on the author’s part. Egypt has plenty of mosques and the Brotherhood and Salafists don’t make mosque-building a top priority. The question is what will be taught in those mosques and how it will direct society.
Why is Friedman dishonest? Because if he claimed that these women weren’t interested in enforcing an “Islamic” lifestyle or destroying Israel or spreading Islamism elsewhere or enforcing on all Egyptian women the dress code they follow, then readers would see through such an argument and view it as ridiculous. So he must create silly demands for the Islamists so he can claim that the people don’t want those things.
The same point applies on the supposed disinterest in bans on liquor sales. How many of these people have ever seen a liquor store? There are already proportionately few in Egypt and they cater overwhelmingly to Christians and tourists. Such a ban would not affect their lives but would make them feel that Egypt was a moral, Islamically correct county.
Again, these are trivial issues. We can all think of far more serious ones that the Islamists and their supporters do focus on.
An aspect of Friedman’s work that makes it so popular is that he constantly invents simple new theories and catch phrases to explain Middle East politics. After reading his column it is possible to believe that one has easily achieved understanding of the region. Of course, the reason that he must come up with so many theories is that they almost always fail.
Now he has a new, materialistic explanation for why Islamists will become moderate: they need the money. He cites how Egyptian Islamists have issued conflicting statements about allowing tourists to have alcohol and bikinis as proving that they must make lots of accommodations with reality. No oil money, you see.
But I heard similar things about Iran in the late 1970s — they’ll have to be moderate because they need to sell the oil — and about Yasir Arafat at the start of the peace process in the early 1980s — he’ll have to be moderate because the Palestinians he rules will demand garbage collection and decent schools. One might just as well have posited that the Turkish government would never turn against Israel because Israeli tourists brought in so much money.
There have been many examples of the Friedman theory since Karl Marx first wrote that the means of production detemined the shape of society. When Lenin invoked the New Economic Policy to get the new-born USSR through its tough, post-World War I period, naive Westerners announced that Communism had been tamed. My relatives and their neighbors in Poland — I can document this — comforted themselves by thinking the Germans wouldn’t kill them because the Nazis needed their forced labor.
It is awesome how our political geniuses simply don’t learn from history.
The tourism problem is simple. Visitors will be segregated into specific areas like beach resorts where they can drink, party, and bikini away without contact with many Egyptians. The same applies to the up-the-Nile cruises to antiquities sites. Problem solved, except perhaps for the occasional Salafist terrorist attack.
I vividly remember the moment 30 years ago when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gave his own response to Friedman’s “new” theory. Allow me to paraphrase: Western observers don’t understand Iran’s revolution. They think it is about lowering the price of watermelons (i.e., material well-being) but it is about invoking the will of Allah. Once you have enough people who think this way, forget about Western-style materialistic pragmatism.
Much of the Western intelligentsia cannot conceive that there are many people who don’t think like them in other parts of the world. So much for cosmopolitan international sophistication. (Of course, they often make the same mistake about their own fellow countrymen, too.)
All of this, however, is standard Friedman and standard Western media. That’s not why what Friedman is doing now might be described as his Jane Fonda moment.
The first reason is his shocking enthusiasm for the Brotherhood, summed up in his reported phrase: “The Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate, authentic, progressive alternative.” Mr. Friedman has responded that he was referring not to the Brotherhood but instead meant to say, “the Egyptian elections produced, for the first time legitimate, authentic, liberal, secular, nationalist, progressive alternatives to the Muslim Brotherhood and now the Brotherhood would have to compete with such alternatives — for the first time.”
If that is what he meant it is not very impressive. “Nationalist” alternatives to the Brotherhood have been running Egypt since 1952, after all, and “liberal, secular” movements were very active in the latter Mubarak years. I wonder who Friedman is referring to as “progessive,” the radical nationalist-Marxist parties? Moreover, under Egyptian law, the Brotherhood was outlawed and while it did function it was weak compared to now. So to act as if alternatives to the Brotherhood have now arisen is like saying after the fall of the czar and the Russian revolution that things were better because now there was an alternative to the Bolsheviks.
Friedman has never written anything critical about the Brotherhood and Salafists. He certainly didn’t say, “Great election, too bad about the result.” And so he and many others including the U.S. government have given not just grudging acceptance but absolute approval to a party with a long history down to the present day of anti-Americanism, antisemitism, and support for terrorism, as well as the desire to transform Egypt into a repressive society and a political dictatorship.
But since even Friedman agrees that he used such words, let’s examine them:
– “Legitimate.” Does ”legitimate” merely mean here that a lot of Egyptians accept the Brotherhood as their leader? But by this definition Stalinism, Nazism, fascism, and Japanese racist militarism were all “legitimate” doctrines. What is an “illegitimate” doctrine? I suppose nowadays only Zionism gets presented as such. Friedman, who is never short of criticisms on Israel, finds revolutionary Islamism more to his taste.
On the other hand, it is not at all clear that secular and liberal groups are now “legitimate” since they have been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters and are likely to face significant harassment from the army, Brotherhood, and Salafists.
On broader grounds, Western leftist intellectuals cannot understand how a dictatorship can be popular and yet still be a dictatorship that those who believe in democracy and freedom should criticize. This was the basis of the great divide among leftist and liberal intellectuals of earlier generations over the Soviet Union and other left-wing dictatorships. Since real liberals today have been, at least temporarily, wiped out, few are left other than conservatives to make this point.
–”Authentic.” That usually means something arising from one’s society and properly fitting into it. But here’s a problem. Today, democracy as known in the West is not an “authentic” doctrine for Egyptians. It is seen as an import and doesn’t have a strong cultural, intellectual, political, economic, or religious basis. And since liberal parties didn’t get many votes, that tends to indicate that liberty, equality for women, tolerance, and all the other elements of a real democracy also aren’t “legitimate” in Egypt either.
–”Progressive.” In recent years, “progressive” has become a false flag for extreme left-wing movements in the West. Friedman says he did not apply that word to the Brotherhood, so let’s leave him out of it personally. Still, though, there is no doubt that many people who consider themselves “progressive” are also enthusiastic about the Brotherhood. In fact, I’ve never heard any such person criticize the group, or Islamists generally for that matter.
So “progressives” see revolutionary Islamism as the proper Middle East counterpart of the Western left. Observers often ask how these two forces can work together when their views and values are apparently so different. Here’s the answer: many or most Western leftists do view Islamism as a kindred movement. In part, that’s because they don’t understand Islamism; and in part they don’t understand Islamism because when they see it they shout not, ”Down with the reactionary clerical-fascists!” but rather: “Comrade!”
Unfortunately, the Islamists don’t reciprocate this love.
Isn’t Friedman aware that real Egyptian democrats are rushing to get visas and leave the country? That many Christians are getting out and the rest are trembling?
Within hours of the Friedman statement, the Free Egyptians Party — the most “authentic” liberal party in Egypt — declared a boycott of the remaining elections, claiming electoral fraud. Personally, I don’t think electoral fraud was a major factor but, rather, the party is reacting out of hopelessness, knowing that an open democratic society has no chance now in Egypt and that it cannot depend on any help from Western governments, which support its enemies.
The real moderates and democrats are in despair, knowing what they will be living under. And Friedman cheers their oppressors and says there is nothing to worry about. How is this better than becoming a booster for some Latin American military dictator or African tyrant or ruthless Communist oligarchy?
In playing these games, Friedman and the U.S. government ignore the mature adult way to handle such issues. A foreign policy professional should say something like this:
The Muslim Brotherhood won elections and clearly enjoys support from many Egyptians. It is now up to the Brotherhood to live up to those hopes and fulfill the promise of true democracy. To do so, the Brotherhood will have to break with past beliefs and policies. We all hope this change does indeed happen. But we will be watching closely and never hesitate to point out when it acts in a different manner. The Brotherhood will have to prove, to Egyptians and the world alike, that it truly is now moderate and democratic. Only then would we accept such a claim.
You see the difference? My version says: We have an open mind, we are willing to work with you, but the burden is on you to prove your claims. We know enough about you to be skeptical and we will not be fooled.
His version says: Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate? Brotherhood! Brotherhood! yay, Brotherhood!
The second thing that disgusts me is Friedman’s attempts to win applause by sucking up to his Egyptian audience. He tells them that the U.S. Congress is profoundly corrupt. Aside from demeaning his own country and civilization, the signal that statement sends is: Hey, democracy doesn’t really work!
And what does an Egyptian audience think of when it hears this line about money ruling? Not insider stock-trading but rather the old Arab assertion that the Zionist lobby directs U.S. policy, that’s what.
If Friedman actually was knowledgeable on the Middle East he would have understood the message he is conveying to Egyptians and might have avoided such statements. Oh, wait, Friedman himself has made such a charge, saying that the Jewish lobby bought Congress’s enthusiastic reception of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, being saved from accusations of antisemitism only because he is the son of Jewish parents.
“Money will kill your democracy like it did ours,” said Friedman. So Egypt is now a democracy but America isn’t? And, again, who do Arab ideologues identify with using “money” to control politics? Answer: Not Tony Rezko.
Friedman calls Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum an example of an American extremist. This tells Egyptians: We have no right to criticize you! You now have leaders who openly call for genocide against Jews. Well, we have people who don’t favor gay marriage!
Friedman (and Obama) can’t think a move ahead. If (ok, when) the Brotherhood starts to crack down and at some point even Obama might feel inclined to criticize its repression, Egyptian leaders and writers will respond: How dare you criticize us! According to your own Friedman you are ruled by money, don’t have proper democracy, and are full of extremists. So mind your own business.
And yet at the end of his lecture in Cairo the audience was still reportedly critical of Friedman, one more proof that you cannot win over those who hate you on the basis of a seriously constructed worldview by flattering them and bashing your own side.
I’m almost done but there’s one more thing important for you to know. It’s from a column I wrote a year ago, in the midst of the revolution. The radical blogger Angry Arab made fun of Friedman back then. Referring to Friedman as a “Zionist,” the blogger mocked him for claiming that the revolution would produce a moderate pro-American Egypt ready to keep the peace with Israel. Every Arab understood, said Angry Arab, that the exact opposite would happen.
A humorous example of Friedman’s lack of self-awareness is the fact that he called his column, “Watching Elephants Fly.” Can many Americans hear that phrase and not think of a certain famous animated film by Walt Disney?
It’s title is most appropriate: Dumbo.
Also read: “Tom Friedman vs. Israel“
Barry Rubin, You wrote:
“Many said they voted for Islamists because they were neighbors, people they knew,…..”
Well, duh!
Muslim women voting for oppression of themselves and other Muslim women.
And why?
Because people – who know them – want it that way.
I remember a few years back when French Muslim women were polled as to whether they wanted to ”cover.”
75% said no, absolutely not.
But many of those same women DID cover.
WHY?
Because people they knew insisted on it.
Intimidation doesn’t even have to be verbal.
Your portrayal of Friedman as going “all-out to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t radical, isn’t a threat, in fact is a good thing, and will only become eve more moderate once it is in power” verges on the hysterical. In fact Friedman writes “To not be worried about the theocratic, antipluralistic, anti-women’s-rights, xenophobic strands in these Islamist parties is to be recklessly naïve.” That’s a cheering section?
Friedman’s take is a far more reasonable one than writing that Egyptians “VOTED (caps mine) for an authoritarian, Sharia regime.” How does one vote for a “regime” and in what world does 40% of the vote make the MB the new rulers of Egypt with the unilateral and unchallenged powers of a dictator?
Did you not see what happened to the last dictator and that it wasn’t the MB that took him down and that all his weapons didn’t keep people out of the street? If things go bad with the MB, what makes you think people would suddenly sit on their hands and take it? The MB, having this mythical dictatorship you are so fond of portraying, would slit their own throats to fire on a crowd of protesters or try and seize power.
And who in Egypt was voting for even more sharia in a country with a Constitution that has enshrined sharia for decades? Does the fact that financial opportunities are non-existent in Egypt escaped you? You think these people are so well off they have the leisure to define their existence which is already defined by Islam by even more Islam rather than food and work and education? These people are already conservative Muslims, why is that news?
And why are veiled Islamic women any stupider for being happy than women who live within strict Jewish Orthodoxy?
And in fact, as an aside, Egypt does not have plenty of mosques; there is a shortage.
Friedman is not saying Muslims “weren’t interested in enforcing an ‘Islamic’ lifestyle or destroying Israel or spreading Islamism elsewhere or enforcing on all Egyptian women the dress code”; he’s saying that it isn’t politically feasible to have those as priorities either for themselves or the political parties. That’s a far cry from saying they’re Jeffersonians.
Saying that America has given “absolute approval” of the MB verges on pure nonsense as is the idea that the MB doesn’t have to give in to political and financial reality and that they will just wave their arms and strict sharia will rule the day. No doubt they will agitate against Israel but they will not be able to themselves decide how this will proceed and doing do won’t feed people or provide jobs. Unless this magical dictatorship you predict comes about they can be voted out as easily as in. That is reality now.
Whether you like it or not the Egyptian people will define their own version of a democracy and if your benchmark for a “true” democracy is defined by them falling in love with Israel then you’ll wait forever.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian movement. Friedman thinks it can be moderated in power. A lot of people though the same thing about the Islamists in Iran and were proven wrong. The unqualified endorsement he gave to the Egyptian election is like saying the burden is not on the MB to show it has given up past goals and it wants to work for a democratic and tolerant Egypt.
In the last free election in Germany in December 1932, the Nazis got around 35% percent of the vote. Hitler when he became Chancellor in January 1933, outmaneuvered his democratic opponents, made the Reichstag toothless, had the Nazis take over every institution in Germany and within six months, abolished every political party except his own and became the country’s absolute dictator.
The Egyptian Islamists are much more cautious. The extent to which they will establish a full-blown Sharia regime will be determined by how much domestic opposition they will face and what the world’s reaction will be. I predict they will face little of it at home and Friedman has given every sign he does not care if the Egyptians become enslaved by an even more repressive regime.
The truth is this was not a vote for Western-style democracy but the exact opposite. Every one knows the MB is not a secular organization and it promotes jihad, which by the way is its core philosophy. An Islamist dictatorship is indifferent to human life. A MB regime will be no different in its response than any other Arab regime in the past to a challenge to its own power. As we see from the Syrian Assad regime’s killing of its own people every day, the world shrugs its shoulders and could care less its going on.
Its not going to be ay different in a MB-run Egypt. Those who write as you do are out of touch with reality and are hopelessly naive. The Arab Spring did not result in outpouring of demands for freedom and led straight to a totalitarian Islamist Winter.
They’re already trying to jail the head of the Free Egyptians Party, the largest party in the liberal Egypt Bloc that came in fourth in the elections.
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/591651
The exact opposite of a Western-style democracy would be a dictator which is what they just got rid of. That’s as silly as saying “Friedman cheers as Egyptians are enslaved.”
And then you drag out the Nazis and Iran again as if every budding Democracy has gone straight to dictatorship and all scenarios equal whatever scenario you want to bring up and that is nuanced analysis.
Your last paragraph is simply untrue as I am here and you are not and saying there was such a thing as an Arab Spring in the first place isn’t the same thing as it actually having occurred in the sense you mean. Of course the sense you mean is a strawman and despite that is wrong since no totalitarianism has emerged.
Instead of putting the MB on the throne of Egypt by some mysterious mechanism that is linked to Iran and Nazi Germany, do what Friedman suggests: shut up, stop predicting things you know nothing about and take notes. You might learn something about naivete which itself is a two way street, especially when it sole component is unflinching cynicism passed off as analysis.
That’s the same thing Hitler’s co-conspirators told themselves. We’ll restrain him, power will moderate him and he will do as we tell him. He turned the tables on them and the rest was history.
Here’s the big difference between Germany and Egypt. A majority of Germans never voted for the Nazis in a free election. The vast majority of Egyptians on the other hand, did vote in a free election for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists.
We don’t need to take notes on a dictatorship. Keeping on telling yourself the Islamists are democrats. In a decade we’ll see which one of us is right. Make no mistake: Egypt voted for a different stripe of dictator.
Yes, yes, all of history can be reduced to what would Hitler do. There’ll be no dictatorship of Islamists in Egypt. Perhaps it would help if you could describe how this would come about and what form this dictatorship would take. Please don’t forget to ignore the army or anything else that would prevent it and mention Germany at least one more time and Iran for good measure.
Piffle – the only reason the Egyptians didn’t like Mubarek (sp) is because he honored the peace treaty with Israel.
Plus they were allergic to broomsticks up their backsides.
Ahh, the cropped-photo approach of the apologist! Sure, the MB doesn’t have a majority alone- but combined with the even more radical Salafists, they do: in fact over 2/3, which is untrammeled control.
What’s photocropped about saying the salafis and MB are two different entities with different goals for the country? And in what world does a 2/3 majority (which it won’t work out to in the actual parliament) mean “untrammeled?” Saying that is worse than photocropped since it’s a straight out untruth without the saving grace of mitigation photocropping gives. AGain it’s straight to dictatorship and when one asks for a mechanism whereby this will happen it straight to Germany and Iran. Take notes.
This is an example of what has been called a “usefull,” idiot.
Friedman is an intellectual and moral degenerate and the fact that he is being defended is disgusting.
If this Saile Furman person is a Jewish women defending him, it also demonstrates the sickness infecting many Jewish-Americans these days…
I am surprised that even conservative Jews put up with this stuff. Have you no ability to think for yourselves or apply fairplay where it is due? Everyone knows the MB are morons, but why make them into slavering werewolves already leading hordes into Israel?
And exactly how would a non-religious council work as a dictatorship? You think the MB would hand over power to a Imam? The MB comes from a religious point of view but are not themselves holy men.
So this “dictatorship” will be how many guys? 10, 100? Since they are not holy men will holy men be advisers? Have any of you people actually thought this through other than “oh, look, Iran.” An imam in Iran is not an Imam in Egypt by the way.
All they need to do is win the presidential election, make a deal with the army to protect its privileges – already done and after that they don’t have to worry about their opposition. If challenged they can crush them and no one in the West will say a word. The West didn’t come to the aid of Iran’s opposition. There is no reason to believe it will care if democracy in Egypt disappears because the Islamists think its a hindrance to their turning the country into a full-fledged tyranny.
Well Norman it all seems so easy when you just make stuff up and that’s that. What about the original protesters who took to the streets in the first place? They were not Islamists and in fact the only time salafis have rallied in Cairo they had to bus them in cuz they’re weren’t enough. You think those protesters are going to sit down for a dictatorship? I’m telling you, it’s not going to happen. Egypt is dedicated to a parliament and that’s what they are going to have and not even the MB and salafis will stop it. How in the world you construe this as a free election and a road to dictatorship at the same time is beyond me.
How do you think the elections happened in the first place. The protesters didn’t ask, they demanded and died to do it. They’ll take no guff from the MB I promise you that. Egypt will not use massive live fire on protesters period. It is that which makes the MB and salafis take the democratic route – they must, like it or not. Unless you can make a case the protesters would for some reason be afraid to rally against a new dictatorship but not the old one you are not using common sense.
Ms. Furman: The MB may be morons, but they have announced they will not recognize Israel and they will put the peace treaty up for a plebicite. Given the antisemitism (or anti-Zionism, if you like that better) that Mubarak allowed to fester in Egypt, the likelihood is that the peace treaty will be rejected. Since the treaty went into effect, Egypty has been supplied with nice, shiny American arms, and against whom do you think they will be used? I’ll give you one guess. So Israel will have given up land for peace, and in the end will have neither. Just terriffic.
Slighly different topic: Thomas Friedman is a shining example of the descent into incoherence of Western, ‘liberal,’ ‘intellectuals’ who are neither liberal nor intellectual. As someone at work said, they’re so open minded, their brains are falling out of their heads.
Listen, Jack – can I call you Jack? If you want to me to really listen to what you have to say, please don’t write out-of-this-world scenarios where Mubarak could somehow stop tens of millions of Egyptians from not liking Israel. Sadat was murdered for making peace with Israel. You think Mubarak might have had fireside radio chats chastising his naughty children for disliking Israel?
Please keep in mind that Egypt has been in two rather nasty wars with Israel and then there was the Suez Crisis. I understand why they don’t like each other as unresolved wars will do that. They have issues and Ruben is a perfect example that this can not be laid solely at the feet of Egypt – Mr. Ruben does little to hide his open contempt for Egyptians. Friedman wants to make nice and he is dragged across coals for even thinking of it. How is that all on Egypt then? In fact there is not middle ground – you either hate Egypt for hating Israel, or you are a kapo, useful idiot, self-hating Jew traitor.
Re-think, and then write.
Jeff Mayall – You don’t have to believe me about the MB, just read what they themselves say: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/12/muslim-brotherhood-declares-mastership-of-world-as-ultimate-goal/
“but why make them into slavering werewolves already leading hordes into Israel?”
Maybe you missed Sheikh Qaradawi’s speech upon his triumphant return to Egypt where he called for a million shahids to march on Jerusalem. Yeah, it’s currently not feasible, but it’s what they want.
Why not just assume I have different point of view rather than I missed something? I was in Tahrir Square that day.
Ms. Furman: Hitler became Chancellor of Germany when the NSDAP received 33% of the vote, so 40% is more than enough for the MB to become the NSDAP of Egypt.
Thanks, I’ve totally changed my views based on that sole fact from 8 decades ago in a country that otherwise bears no resemblance whatsoever to Egypt and with an utterly different history.
Jeff Mayall:
1) Yes – Mubarak could have stopped the anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist propaganda spewing forth from his media outlets. He chose not to, and so Israel will be left with a problem.
2) Don’t quite undersand your objection when I pointed out that if 33% is enough to run a governmnent, that 40% should then be enough as well. Remember that MB + Salafists have about 2/3s of the vote.
OH Really? no resemblance huh? guess it’s one more partof history you chose to ignore. Egyptian MB are NAZIS, MB was created by NAZIS and are still Nazis-
and Ms Furman ignores that in Tahrir Square Mubarek is the one who held the line against the army killing his own people. He ALLOWED the demonstrations. The MB will not tolerate a similar action. It would be more like ASSAD and Khameni – blood inthe streets.
you are HIGH on the euphoria of mass hypnosis, MS Furman like the heiling Germans were at Hitler’s speeches, full of wet dreams, visions of what will never be in Egypt, and never foreseeing whatis so easily predictible- the destruction of an entire nation at the hands of a few madmen.
I pity you
Barry Rubin- once again hits the nail on the head-keep calling out the fools to blind to see
No, there is no resemblance. The affair in Germany in the ’30s was an incredibly complex affair with its own currents and counter currents and history. It has nothing to do with Egypt.
And Mubarak didn’t “let” Tahrir Square be occupied. I ate tear gas a dozen times that first day as the protesters were repeatedly blocked from the streets leading to Tahrir.
That night of the 28th was none stop automatic weapons fire in Tahrir from about 7 pm to 11 pm in what must’ve been a furious battle. I was in my hotel 5 blocks away with the windows open.
And in what world will the MB be allowing or not allowing demonstrations? Some of you people are in the stratosphere with these comments which are based on pure nonsense.
so sorry for your illiteracy- history of ww2 101- the NAZI’s fled to EGYPT, took Islamic names, MB was a NAZI org. Read about ODESSA- Egypt was inthe AXIS – they lost the war but not thier dream of Judenfrei world- the most popular book next to KORAN in Egypt is Protocols of Zion.
Mubarek could have and did not put the TNAKS on people – tear gas was a HUMANE alternative
please remember when the people in Egypt are starving and bloodied by the people you are enabling and glorifying- my words to you-
sweet dreams- that’s what you have
Saile Furman wrote, “Whether you like it or not the Egyptian people will define their own version of a democracy and if your benchmark for a “true” democracy is defined by them falling in love with Israel then you’ll wait forever.”
Democracy is a useless animal unless it leads to improved understanding of “the other.” Egyptians do not have to fall in love with Israel, but it would be a real measure of their progress as fully functional humans if they could go to a soccer game without calling for another Holocaust.
As to Egyptians defining their own version of Democracy, it is to be expected that they will not wind up in the same place as Canada or Costa Rica given that their initial experiences are so different. Nonetheless, in Democracy of any sort, there ought to be a modicum of “go along to get along” to grease the wheels of progress. More than that, “trust” between neighbors, officials and the general populace, Christians and Muslims, Shia and Sunni, etc. should result from the democratic progress. Will the elected officials yield power if they lose subsequent elections? Still to be decided!
In fact, part of Friedman’s stupidity is that he expects us to believe that he has any insight into how things will ultimately turn out in these highly volatile situations. Perhaps he believes that if we trust his insights, things will turn out better in the end. What
I think the deciding factor will be dictated by 2 things in Egypt. The first is the idea of the separation of church and state as leading to a more successful and open society. There is no sign in Egypt of a general willingness to adopt such a view and so the prognosis there is grim.
The other factor will be the degree to which Muslims in Egypt can adapt themselves to the idea of tolerance. Since Islam is considered a benevolence under which other religions will be “protected” (read 2nd class citizens) the prognosis is grim there as well.
Friedman, contrary to what is being said, acknowledges these as problems but says the reality of economics and relations with other countries will reign in the more radical elements in these matters such as the MB and salafis.
That is not the same thing as cheering enslavement even if you put the “useful idiot” hat on him. People are entitled to opinions without assuming a low I.Q.
While I think Egypt is more vulnerable (no oil) than say, Iran, to economic realities and because of relations with a closer Mediterranean world, it is not a done deal that Egyptians will turn away from their own values just to have a job and this issue will not be portrayed in such a stark contrast any way; if it was maybe there would be moderation.
I just don’t think Egyptians generally see a connection between a free and equal society and better living and opportunities. Egypt is a closed society in many ways where it basically polices itself due to intolerance for wading too far from the mainstream. Egypt it can be assumed will be willing to make concessions to Westernization in the name of economic opportunity.
As for freedom of thought, Egyptians are generally not a nation of writers, thinkers and artists and so to me it’s a non-issue; Egyptians don’t care whether they can express themselves openly. They can drink their liquor and smoke their hashish in secret and view their porno this way too and be content. Americans have been smoking weed for decades in secret and the vast majority don’t give a damn whether it’s legal or not.
Egypt looks with a leery eye at bikinis because they see it as a slippery slope to strip clubs and gay pride parades. Egyptians admire many things about Americans but see no use for certain vulgar expressions of American life. Egyptians are actually very nice and cultured people but they are intolerant of social change and while they generally consider most things in life the business only of the person doing them, there are crucial aspects of public like they consider their business and this, together with a lack of tools for self-criticism are in my view the greatest block towards a future for Egypt.
They are feeling their way along these issues and how it will turn out is anyone’s guess. The lack of terrorist attacks ala Iraq is a hopeful sign and the rare but consistent attacks on Christians a troubling one. Any idiot can see Egypt is at a crossroads between a Constitution that will enable all and one that will solely enable Muslims. Going whole hog and declaring Egypt the next Iran and a dictatorship is in my opinion childish. It is a leap of logic to put a nice block in the Egyptian parliament by the MB as a dictatorship since there are no facts or common sense means presented by which this could happen. On the contrary, those counted out Facebook Kids still hold the key to this countries future as any bold moves to usurp the vote by the MB will bring them right back out onto the streets again and then the MB would occupy the same position as Mubarak and with the same decision as to using live and massive fire on the protesters. Should they do so, it would be the end of the MB in Egypt in my opinion as being conservative does not translate to exchanging one yoke for another.
Tom Friedman may be taking notes but he shows no comprehension of the fact that the vast majority of Egyptians voted for an Islamic dictatorship – and that this vote was not guided by material concerns. As for the Facebook kids… they have zero influence. The same is true of Egypt’s tiny liberal parties who will cut deals with the Muslim Brotherhood to be kept around for show. But Egypt’s future is not going to be a secular and democratic one. Friedman shows he understands nothing about the Middle East.
If I said the exact opposite of this comment was true it would be closer to reality. Good going, it’s not easy to be that far out to sea while insisting on making comments with a ring of authority.
Let’s check back about this time next year and see who has a better understanding of true meaning of the Egyptian election results.
People with their eyes open don’t need to wait a year. We can just remember back to a year ago, when Friedman was cheering on the liberal nature of Tahrir Sq rebellion. No Islamism or Jew-hatred in sight, he proclaimed. So, how’d that prognostication work out? Now Friedman declares the Muslim Brotherhood “progressive” so he doesn’t have to admit he was totally wrong. What will he do in a year, when Egypt follows the Islamist path to totalitarian rule? Ans: If the rule of Hamas in Gaza is any model, avert his eyes from their human rights abuses and blame Israel for not making peace.
There was no Jew-hatred or Islamism in sight in Tahrir Square, relatively speaking, during the 15 days of its occupation unless you want to inflate 1% to 99% which I feel you in fact do want to do. How would observing that fact be a pronostication?
And Israel already is at peace with Egypt so what did that even mean?
So, you have your eyes wide open but weren’t in Tahrir Square during the time in question which means you didn’t see anything. Even wide eyes can’t peer through news accounts or across oceans.
@Jeff
There was no Jew-hatred or Islamism in sight in Tahrir Square
yeah if you ignore 200 men raping a blond lady and yelling JEW JEW
and all the anti ISrael anti USA rhetorics and signs
or the blown up gas lines
my fave was Christiane dhimmi dummy Amanpour saying ‘but we love you” ‘we support this” and the Egypt men say WE HATE YOU AMERICANS
must be wonderful to go through life with such delusions as JM
what drugs are youtaking? I need some
Well pal, I was in the square that night of the assault and 9 of the 15 days of the square’s occupation and there was virtually no expression of Jew-hatred. Stop with the ridiculous comments about events you know nothing about.
Let’s fact check right now and you’ll see you’re wrong on almost every count. Time passing won’t make you any more informed.
When Friedman brought is infamous phrase that “Congress was bought and sold by the Israel lobby”, it sounded like it came out of Richard Pierce’s “The Turner Diaries”, a classic of white supremacist “lit”. Someone should investigate whether Tom Firedman actually plagiarized it, or came up with it on its own. It is quite a feat for the “paper of record” to be echoing the Turner Diaries
Actually it sounds an awful lot like AIPAC’s declaration on their home page “America’s pro-Israel lobby.” Let me guess: that means they are trying NOT to exert influence and also don’t use traditional lobbying means but instead resort to logic and reason.
Seriously?
Jonah, I think this website is above your level. Stick with Facebook so you wont embarass yourself.
That’s what a child might say when an adult tells them the lights in the night sky are stars.
“Some illiterate elderly women confided that they could not read the ballot and just voted where their kids told them to.”
Hey! Just like Democrat Party voters hear in the USA!
These guys are in big trouble.
I’m reminded of Norman Angell and his 1909 thesis that European economic integration during the nineteenth and early twentieth century precluded another Napoleonic War. And then World War One went down. Oops.
muslims voting for shariah.. SHOCKING!!!
I can’t wait for that idiot Friedman’s spin on the dismantling of the pyramids..
islam is revisionist history, replacement theology and the greatest evil ideology the world has ever known.. (atheists are catching up though..)
Friedman defends himself in a letter to Yisrael Medad, wherein he says he was misquoted:
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2012/01/dear-mr-medad-sincerely-thomas-friedman.html
And we’re to conclude that Mr. Medad suddenly trusts the Egyptian press. Well, that would depend on what they say. Trust if they agree and distrust if not. Not exactly something I can hang my hat on. So much for Mr. Medad.
Tom Friedman: pathological oikophobe and authoritarianism groupie, whether of the Chinese, the Islamist or the Ecofascist variety.
B Rubin downplays “legitimization” as if you could have a democratic government without it. True, you can have popular regimes that are totalitarian. Iranian regime is an example of a mix of theocracy with popular consent. But, popular elections are just a farce though aimed to give the regime an appearance of legitimacy. Consequently, Iran has had a number of regime crisis which were all forcefully suppressed. Consent of the “ruled” is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a democracy. Arab regimes have been client states for they have lacked internal support. British imperialism gave them an un-natural birth in the first war. The second war and the ensuing cold war brought Israel into the picture and shaped the nature of the nominally “nationalistic” regimes though keeping in tact the “colonial” nature of the regimes. Recent uprisings are real revolutions of common arabs who seek true independence and respect by disposing the colonial rules. Because of the lack of legitimacy of the colonial regimes, the opposition to the old order was organized around mosques. Thus, when the ordinary arab understood the emperor had no cloth, the muslim brotherhood had the legitimacy, due to its years of oppression, to claim the mantle of the revolution. To expect from Egyptians to set up a liberal democracy at this stage is just plain stupid. Will the brothers transform egypt into another Iran? Not likely at all. For the uninitiated, what protestantism is to catholicism, is Sunni to Shia. the most important difference is that sunni islam has no religious hierarchy. Of course, the Rubin won’t mention it, because he wants you to scare you of the MB bogieman. In short, there is no chance at all of another islamic theocracy in egypt. Supposing that such a regime is initiated, how will it legitimize itself? Who will get the order from the providence and how will it legitimize it? MB so far is just a political party seeking support of people not god. As for the sharia scare, B Rubin should know better. All arab regimes, (with the exception of the former Tunisian regime) are sharia ruled, including the US written Iraqi constitution.
Wow, get that, at last, someone who understands that the MB is secular by definition exactly because of who they are. How many times have I read that Egypt is the next “theocracy” just like Iran. Problem is the Sunnis are not just like Iran. Unless you think the MB will appoint an imam (a different thing in Egypt from Iran) to the dictatorship, all this Chicken Little stuff is nuts.
And as far a a “true” Democracy, ask yourself how people in America would’ve voted in 1960 if they could see R-Rated movies, “Hunky Jesus” contests and gay parades, strip clubs and XXX Bookstore, gay marriage, flash mobs, crime rates about to soar, political correctness, no smoking in your own apartment, illegal aliens by the millions and on and on and on in their future.
Hell, I might’ve voted Salafi myself. What’s more Salafi than not being able to smoke a cig in your own apt.?
Keep in mind, Friedman considers one-party totalitarian dictatorship his ideal FOR THE UNITED STATES. He dreams of being at the right-hand of a strong man with absolute power. His toadying up to Egypt’s new rulers is just part of that mental illness.
Friedman desires one party rule in the US with a weakened legislative and judicial branch so they can get things “done”. I appreciate Barry Rubin’s analysis but I’m scratching my head about what we can do about it. My instinct says it’s none of our business except for regards to Israel.
Friedman has been an enthusiastic proponent of the ChiCom autocracy. No surprise he thinks the Muslim Brotherhood will offer Egypt a bright future.
Yeah, sure.
Islam enslaves. It doesn’t matter which branch, or which Mullas. The whole death cult is of the world, and the world system wants the oil to flow.
“He who controls the spice, controls the world. The spice must flow.”
In this case placing the Muslim Brotherhood in control of a economic region, if I am correct, will keep terror down, and the oil flowing. But, only for a hunda of 10 years. Because, Muhammad said so.
There you go again: in what world has the MB gained this “control?” Any president who takes office is going to be on a very short leash and on strict probation because after Mubarak expectations are very high.
That doesn’t mean sharia won’t rule the day because these Egyptians are after all Muslims but another Iran? Wanting to do a thing and having the ability to marshal a country’s resources towards that end are 2 different things.
How much credence do you think these comments lend to democracy in Egypt when in fact the message you’re giving is that you yourselves don’t respect the vote? You don’t like Obama – he’s President. You don’t like the MB, they’re in parliament – deal with it or don’t wish for democracy cuz you are then your own dictatorship that brooks no disagreement.
If you’re telling me the only people you’ll play with are those who think exactly like you then it’s not a great leap to understand the West Bank since ’67 since one will never have a promise or guarantee a new Palestine will do this or that. In any event, it’d then be shouted down as taqiyya, the other dumb stereotype.
Try finding ways to get along with people rather than not getting along with them and you might be surprised. That doesn’t mean you have to like them or even let them live in your own country but you can let them live and maybe they’ll let you. Egypt hasn’t attacked Israel yet so why not wait instead of considering it all but a done deal. Could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There a difference between democracy used for liberal ends and democracy used for illiberal ends.
The MB aims for the latter. Tactically, they’ll be moderate and feel their way forward but in practice, through their control of state institutions, they will use their power to reshape the state clergy, get a hold of the press and educational system and so transform the outlook of Egyptians.
As for the army, most officers are quite pious and it will adapt more easily to a MB-run Egypt than people think.
Secular liberals are tiny and insignificant. The Facebook kids will be dispersed and the MB now wants order, a change from the past in which it would confront the army.
Like it or not, a new repressive regime is being born before our eyes, dooming Egyptians to decades of poverty, strife, suffering and perhaps war. Apologists for Islamism can explain away the facts all they want.
The reality is Egypt is not going to be the Western-style democracy that they had predicted.
What control of state institutions? What are you talking about? Does that statement make sense to you? How do they do it from parliament and which ones and how do they use them? The press – how do they control the press with a slight majority in parliament?
And how do you know most officers are “quite pious?”
And the Egyptians just went through decades of “poverty, strife, suffering and… war.” How is this worse unless you have a crystal ball?
And who predicted a Western-style democracy? No one I’ve read. These are Muslims not Jeffersonians and pretty much everyone knew that. With the exception of people who cried “Oh lord they’ve voted for Islamic Parties. Why, why?” as if that was a massive shock.
It’s funny how people who hate this society pillory it for being conservative Muslims but so often express surprise when they actually act like it. Weird. And weird.
“Try finding ways to get along with people rather than not getting along with them.” Are you writing to me, or to Muslims?
Take a look around Jeff. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc… The whole Middle East is shaping up to be controled by the Muslims more organized. Is this not the Muslim Brotherhood? Those your type call Moderates.
Is a Moderate Muslim those that hold you down, while the extremists Muslims cut your head off? Or, are extremists Muslims those who do not follow Muhammad.
All I see is a region under the thumb of a death cult at war with the world. The world system loving money, and power will make a deal with this false religion in order for the oil to flow.
Wake up Jeff.
I do not consider the MB moderate and who’s cutting off heads in Egypt? More blather.
Leatherneck is speaking figuratively about cutting off heads. Would you want to be a Christian in Egypt these days?
I wouldn’t want to be a Muslim in Egypt or a Christian. I wouldn’t want to hold citizenship in any Third World country.
And your friend was clearly not writing figuratively so why apologize? No one is lopping heads or hands off in Egypt. To find that type of debauched crime you have to go to the U.S. and it’s gangs and serial killers and home invasions.
That “Angry Arab” is da bomb, almost literally. I won’t link directly to his post (don’t want to contribute to his search engine ranking), but here’s the link you posted to your own post where people can find the link to his post:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/egypt-angry-arab-speaks-truth-to-naive.html
Prof. Rubin, you may be knowledgeble, but after reading the Angry Arab’s post I came to the conclusion you’re not a very talented writer since he, in a few dark mocking sentences, demonstrated far more effectively some of the points you’re trying to convey in article after article almost daily for a year now.
I thought you were criticizing Friedman – until I read what he wrote about him. Now yours seems to me more like a soft brotherly pat politely accompanied by a bit of advice. Here’s some of what he says about him:
“Just read the opening lines of this piece of…material from Friedman. His writing style is so simplistic that it is jarring. Only the Economist of mainstream press pointed out the obvious: that he is a lousy writer.”
See? In 3 short lines he summed up everything you’ve ever tried to say about Friedman. His op-eds are worthless POS, he’s simplistic, and a lousy writer on top – isn’t that what you were saying in so many words? You should really take lessons from him… (Or maybe not.)
“Notice how he is at pains to reassure Israel–and Zionists like himself–that Egyptians don’t dislike Israel and that their opposition and overthrow of the regime would not change Egyptian foreign policy. Dream on, Friedman.”
That short and gleeful “Dream on” says far more effectively everything you’ve tried to say about the threat to Israel. Of course, I know most Egyptians “dislike” us (more like hate), but this guy just have a way with words… You know, what I’ve always found difficult to asses is just how much they hate us, how intensely. I remember myself some time in the 90s on Israeli political forums, making fun of poor right wingers who futilely tried to tell people like me just how much the Arabs hate us. About 10 years after the fact I realized they knew so much more than I did about the Middle East, its present and its history. I rememebered many things they said that I didn’t know, and didn’t believe, and later found out were true.
“almost all friends of Israel in the Arab world (a handful plus tyrants) are notorious anti-Semities [sic], just as Sadat was”
That was part of a sentence inside parentheses – isn’t it genius? I mean the way he can condense an entire dark and cynical reality in such a chillingly sobering half a sentence. Particularly the ending: “just as Sadat was”. That was the groundbreaking Arab peacemaker.
But don’t think his terseness covers for lack of content. No, he explains very well why the Friedman article he talks about was nothing short of a hoax:
“But if you reach–with great difficulty–the end of the article you realize what was going on (in Arabic, there is a proverb: once the cause is known, surprise goes away): the only Egyptian that Friedman cites in this lousy article is none other than `Ali Salim: an untalented Egyptian playwright who specializes in the sleazy and crude humor. But Salim is a shunned man who lives in isolation because out of a population of 85 million Egyptians he is the only one who openly calls for normalization with Israel (although the opportunist attacks Israel AND Jews when he appears on Aljazeera … )” … “Salim was expelled from professional associations because he had visited Israel. So to represent Egyptians, Friedman talks to this guy.”
What a dose of reality, eh?
And in the last couple of sentences he manages to mock quite a popular theory in the West (used to be in Israel too) which he turns on its head:
“Oh, and Friedman says this: “The Arab tyrants, precisely because they were illegitimate, were the ones who fed their people hatred of Israel as a diversion.” Of course, it is the other day [sic] round. Arab tyrants are friends of Israel and the bit of anti-Israel rhetoric that comes out of them is forced by the people on them.”
Of course, he lies a bit there since all Arab rulers are tyrants and only a handful of them made some peace with Israel, unless he regards merely not going to war as being friends. From the way he writes it one might conclude that those openly hostile to Israel (Gaddafi, Assad etc.) were democratic. However, he’s right that peace with Israel isn’t the will of the people.
the angry arab’s hard hitting and barry rubin’s pitty=pats, true each in their own way up to a point, still don’t get to the bottom line with tom friedman, which is that he hates israel, always has, and would like nothing better than to see her destroyed, and his writings are not naive or misguided, much less amusing, but rather always have that deadly end in mind, and to call him a fool is to overlook the murderous animosity within him.
Latma, the Israeli satirical program says it all about Friedman at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MffXBqfC-CU
go to minute 3:50 and enjoy!
“How many of these people have ever seen a liquor store? There are already proportionately few in Egypt and they cater overwhelmingly to Christians and tourists.”
Well it ain’t you and this is a perfect example of why one should actually go to a country before writing about it and calling everyone naive idiots.
In fact liquor is available up and down the block everywhere there’s stores in Cairo and you can have it delivered with no problem whatsoever to any hotel, tourist trap or no. Not only do Egyptians drink but a surprising amount smoke hashish. I’m not talking about kids but conservative men.
Muslims are hypocrites. So what?
The MB’s definition of Sharia is to impose Islam on every one, including the Christian minority.
Most of the votes for Egypt’s secular and liberal parties came from Christians.
You have a country in which you have a party that says rules come from G-d and they are eternal. There can be no compromise with them. That is the Islamic definition of Sharia.
A theocracy is a very repressive regime. Egypt will be a Sunni version of Iran and the end result will be the elimination of true freedom.
Apologists for Islamism willfully refuge to acknowledge what it will do in practice. They support the MB blindly and take its assurances on face value.
The rest of us are skeptical and think if it doesn’t change, it must be resisted and we should help Egyptian moderates and liberals resist the MB’s efforts to change Egypt in its own image.
There is no chance the West will do this. Therein lies the tragedy.
G-d? Who’s G-d? You mean Gad Restaurant on 26th of July Street? Pretty good pizza, cheap too. I like the Margaritas.
In Front Of El Abd Pastry
Phone Number: 16098, 02-25777907, 02-25777962
Tell ‘em Hardy Har Har sent you. They like that joke. Yeah they’re still watching those old Hanna-Barbera Lippy the Lion cartoons.
I was in Mohandiseen for a month and never saw any liquor stores there. I’m not saying it wasn’t available. More important, since we in America had Prohibition, it’s not a stretch to see it happen in Egypt.
They don’t have liquor stores per se; retail is different from the West and they must diversify. However it is on display and easily available in almost every store that sells food goods.
“They had voted for the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist candidates because they expected them to deliver better, more honest government — not more mosques or liquor bans.”
The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist allies will prove even MORE corrupt, unaccountable and incompetent that the military dictatorship. Under their leadership economic collapse, mass starvation and straight out looting/confiscation will be the norm.
As for liquor and hashish that will be phased out via confiscation and edicts followed by random beatings and the odd public execution for those who didn’t get the message the first time.
People get the government they deserve, unfortunately the Egyptian people are about to learn a very harsh lesson that many of them may not survive.
Thanks that did seem entirely at random though obviously you’ve breezed through some short CNN articles.
HH – CNN is to far behind the curve to have any value to me. As for the prediction give it 3 months then get back to me. In the meantime, party like it’s 1929.
Oh what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships a misogynist pedophile demon, should be allowed to massacre a people which has the faith of omnipotent God! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if we do not promptly and fully aid those who are being brutalized and murdered because they profess the Jewish or Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against other of the faithful now all unite and go against the Mohammedans in a Holy Crusade and end with total victory this war against monstrous evil which should have been begun and completed long ago.
Let those who for too long a time have been dhimma, now again become knights. Let those who have been fighting in service of Mohammedans against their own Christian brothers and sisters and their own Jewish cousins now fight in a proper way against all the followers of the misogynist pedophile demon. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul in vain attempt to win the dark hearts of the Mohammedans now labor for glorious honor against them. Behold! On the one side will be the completely destroyed Mohammedans, on the other the fierce and righteous protectors of humanity. On the one side will be the destroyed enemies of the Lord, on the other, his friends who will shout at all the Mohammedans as they destroy them, “It is the will of God! It is the will of God!! It is the will of God!!!”
“Since real liberals today have been, at least temporarily, wiped out”
temporarily? from your lips to gods ear
Bessie Urban – It will come to that, but not now.
” the most “authentic” liberal party in Egypt — declared a boycott of the remaining elections, claiming electoral fraud. Personally, I don’t think electoral fraud was a major factor but, rather, the party is reacting out of hopelessness,”
i’m not so sure about that, i watched a debate between mahmoud salem (better known as snadmonkey online), an “authentic” liberal, and a member of the muslim brotherhood and mahmoud stated he had a list, with evidence, of widespread fraud. it was a very interesting debate ( i will look up the video at home and post it later, can’t view videos on this computer)
Dear Mr Ruben – I’m not sure why you are supprised that the left cheers the enslavement of people. We watched them do it with Venezuela.
Don’t forget Cuba and the Venceramos Brigade in the 60′s
The MB can proudly say they can trace their heritage right back to Hitler. They adored him then and they adore him now. They took guns and money from him and continue his work today.
Great job to our beloved President for doing nothing to stop the rise of the most fascist organization on earth. Proving once again when the far left and far right are helping each other, Jews need to duck for cover.
the fallacy in all this is free elections is not what makes a democracy, a constitution that protects the rights of the minority and gives ALL citizens the same rights (including the right to become president) and liberties is what makes a democracy
Actually I was giving this question a thought because if we want to win the war on terror we are going to have to recognize that it is a war against the political culture of the middle east. The goal should be the establishment of democratic societies which will lead to democratic constitutions which establish democracies.
The only proven method so far seems an American occupation for two generations as in Europe. That way a new generation will arise that does not know slavery.
(That does not mean I am looking forward an American occupation of Egypt.)
If you expect Tom Friedman to ever admit he might be even just a little bit wrong, keep on dreaming.
Tom Friedman produces what the NYT and his readers expect to read, shallow and thoughtless commentary which confirms that everybody including the Arabs believes what they believe.
Tom who?
Boy…the useful idiots (including Friedman) are out in force today!
Let’s put down some predictions about Egypt and revisit them in a year.
One year from now:
- The MB and the Salafist will have an alliance and will control the Egyptian parliament
- many thousands of Coptic Christians will have left the country following several massacres in churches
- The president of Egypt will be a member of the MB or a sympathizer of it.
- The Egyptian parliament will be debating replacing all courts of law with Sharia-based courts
- The media will be strictly controlled to make sure that it is not “un-islamic”
- Egypt will have reneged on its peace treaty with Israel
- Following a nuclear test by Iran, Egypt will start talking about kicking off its own nuclear program.
…and I am actually feeling optimistic today!
“Can many Americans hear that phrase and not think of a certain famous animated film by Walt Disney?”
Never mind the elephant. I’m thinking of the baby-boomer era TV clown whose name fits Friedman: “Bozo”.
Let me see if I can make a couple off points. As of right now, the Army is still in control. They don’t have an elected President or Prime Minister or whatever they are going to call him and they don’t have a constitution yet. For most of the rebellion, the Brotherhood did not take part. During that time and even after they joined in they were getting organized. When Mubarak fell, the MB was out in the countryside passing out food and water and medicines to those in need and also campaigning. Yes, they were promising free and fair elections and all would be milk and honey even though this goes against all teachings of Mohammad. At the same time,after the fall of the regime the progressives began arguing amongst themselves as to what they wanted for their new free country. They couldn’t agree amongst themselves let alone get their message out to the people of the nation.
Now, we are seeing the results. The Brotherhood along with the Salafasts have taken control of the parliament. It will now be up to them to write the new Constitution. The Army is still in control but the Brotherhood are already in the process of making deals with them and it is showing in the Army’s treatment of the people still trying to have a say. The progressives are still fighting amongst themselves or fleeing the country. The Brotherhood has already said it will not honor the peace accord with Israel and that the new constitution will be based on Sharia law. So, golly gee, what’s not to like about this situation? Have I missed anything?
The first paragraph is not inaccurate. However the second is problematic.
Who writes the new Constitution has not been decided and the salafis want a stricter one as far as sharia while the MB would be happy to hold on to the present one which is already based on sharia although they might get more ambitious considering the results of the vote.
Who knows if the MB is making deals with the army? This baseless rumor one couldn’t possibly know about. The MB SAYS it doesn’t want to honor the peace treaty with Israel however actually acting on such an idea may be as fast a way out of power as they found voting a way in.
video as promised
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_single_mediaplayer/0,,6689524_type_video_struct_12585_contentId_15597604_start_0_end_0,00.htm
Lots of us use Iran as a precedent because there are so few other precedents in the Muslim world that would suggest optimism. Ataturk’s reforms are from nearly a century ago. The brief little ray of hope in Lebanon from a few years back has disappeared completely.
For those who criticize the use of Iran as a precedent, what are your own precedents? I notice that none of you has suggested anything. Our pessimism has some justification, but your optimism has none.
Actually, I am envious of Tom Friedman. I would like to know how someone manages to publish columns and books that are consistently wrong, use ideology of white supremacists in the New York Times, yet can make a good living and travel a lot. If a physician made as many errors as Tom, he would lose his license and be seen as a menace to the medical community. How can I get paid well for error and fiction?
said they had voted for the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist candidates because they expected them to deliver better, more honest government — not more mosques
Salafist and MB candidates who want Sharia enforced don’t see a need for mosques from where they preach (incite & intimidate) their ideology?
Many said they voted for Islamists because they were neighbors, people they knew, while secular liberal candidates had never once visited.
Can one imagine if a secular liberal candidate intruded into an Islamist neighbourhood what would happen?
Does St. Thomas know anything about a tribal/clan culture?
Friedman never met a dictator or tyrant he did not love. He’s enamored of China. I stopped reading him awhile back when he thought it was good for middle class Americans who were barely making ends meet pay $10 a gallon for gas because the Europeans did. Of course, he’s rich as they come and gas prices don’t effect him at all.
As for the Brotherhood being such a benevolent group, didn’t he say the same thing about Hamas? He was always praising Hamas because they set up soup kitchens and youth clubs.
Notice he did not mention the fact that 8 out of 10 women in Egypt are circumcised. I wonder if that rate will go up or down when the Bros take over. Take a wild guess on that one.
When the left are wrong, which on the “track record” method of measuring the accuracy of leftist predictions, is almost always the case, the left must always first and foremost try to negate their own imbecility and total lack of foresight, it is of utmost importance, to themselves, to continue to delude themselves into believing their own emotion based version of reality.
Their belief that the Islamist maniacs of the MB are just fluffy freedom loving bunny rabbits is a case in point, the fact that they, the Muslim brotherhood, are genocidal Jew hating maniacs, a fact which any relatively sane human being and even the most credulous of leftist imbeciles, can confirm if one bothers to take even a cursory glance at their ideology and modus ‘operandi’, is simply too painful a truth to handle, therefore they continue to delude themselves.
The left are complicit in the rise of Islamic fascism, the fact that most of them are too stupid to realize it it doesn’t negate their responsibility, in the 1930s the Paleo- Marxists sided with national socialism because they believed that together they could bring down the capitalist West, they were complicit with the evils of national socialism, only until the national socialists attacked their beloved butchers of communism that is.
Todays neo-socialists are simply following in exactly the same footsteps of their Marxist forbears, they really have deluded themselves into believing that these genocidal Jew hating islamic maniacs of the MB are just community organizer type “beautiful people” who want nothing more than to bring the “peace and love” of Islamic doctrine to the masses.
Myself I think it’s the “no interest on loans” bullshit that mesmerizes these leftist fools into deluding themselves as to the true nature of islamism, shallow sound bites and bullshit is a potent hallucinogenic mixture for the idiot left.
If however, there are any of you Leftists that still retain a modicum of self respect and an inkling for learning I suggest you look into what happened to hundreds of thousands of iranian Leftist imbeciles who in 1979, just like you leftist imbeciles in 2012, couldn’t see the fifty foot writing on the wall re the reality of islamism.
All Islamists want sharia law, any islamist who claims he doesn’t is a liar, there is NO “moderate” version of sharia law, ergo there are NO moderate islamists, the two are mutually exclusive.
Sharia Law, political islam, islamism, is the antithesis of “liberalism” it is the most extreme form of theocratic fascism, the left willfully ignore this fact because they have constructed an alternate reality, one based on emoticon based delusion and guilt, in this context it can be easily understood as to why they are acting so insanely credulous, it’s a common phenomenon within the useful idiot fraternity, history is replete with examples.
But don’t fret, the reality, in the end, always trumps the delusion, the leftists will be forced by reality to uncover their eyes, they will no doubt ignore the reality and they will definitely try and excuse their complicity, that goes without saying, but they will be forced by events to see the truth of who and what they support.
There will be war.
Actually there are different versions of sharia law and Iran’s leaders are completely different from a Sunni leadership. Sunni Muslims do not consider their leaders descended from Mohamed. The MB is the equivalent of a far right political party in the U.S. that looks to church leaders outside their group and to religious values. If Pat Robertson came to power as President and he had 50 men go with him into congress, it would be like that. Religion would be their agenda but only able to be carried so far. No holy man would have any official status within government. The MB needs to write the new Constitution the way they want it and can’t just wave their arms and get women covered.
“Actually there are different versions of sharia law”
Indeed.
However all versions subscribe to the following founding principle.
“ISLAMIC LAW SHARIA AND FIQH
Sharia (Arabic: ةعيرش; also Sharī’ah, Shari’a, Shariah or Syariah) is the Arabic word for Islamic law, also known as the Law of Allah. Islam classically draws no distinction between religious, and secular life. Hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day life, politics, economics, banking, business or contract law, and social issues.”
All versions of sharia are based on the Quran and Sunnah, anyone who claims they aren’t is seriously mistaken, more to the point anyone who believes the Quran or Sunnah are “secular” have either:
1) never read any of them
or
2) are so deluded that to call them credulous would be a gross understatement.
I am not in anyway suggesting that you Mr Turnull fall into the “imbecile” category, it’s just that I find it either disingenuous or credulous of people to claim that the cherry picking of sharia in anyway supports the premise that sharia is secular or in any way moderate.
The national socialists wanted state pensions for their elderly, they wanted to take over big buissenesses, they wanted to ban all profiteering from war, the abolition of all incomes not earned by work, the sharing of all profits from wholesale trade, etc etc etc*, all policies I am certain any self respecting honest leftist would glady admit to be in favor of, agreed?
However I seriously doubt any one of these self same Leftists would seriously argue that national socialism wasn’t an evil supremacist Jew hating genocidal ideology.
Would they?
*if anyone still labours under the delusion that the national socialists didn’t “demand” these aforementioned reforms then I suggest they look up the 25 points of the national socialist german workers party.
It was not said that sharia was either secular or moderate but that the MB is not to be compared to Iran’s mullah’s who are actually religious men. The MB is secular in the sense they are a political entity with conservative religious values. They are not holy men. They are not a priesthood but a congregation.
I read that some imam in Egypt is suggesting that the pyramids should be cover with wax, to be hidden and not be worshiped by Egyptians. These religious guys are crazy? no really. they know that real thinking Egyptians are tied to their pre Muslim history. After all Egypt has a longer and richer tradition without Islam… This scares the religious leaders so they will do anything to eliminate, destroy and hid ancient history. Egypt needs a push away from Islam to be true to their real culture and traditions. Every Egyptian knows that deep down inside… and Friedman is really encouraging the dark and dead end avenues.
I agree 100% with other commentators who have said that Friedman never met a dictator he didn’t like. He’s written numerous times his heart felt admiration on how the Communists in China run their country. Hooray for forced abortions. He’s also very much like his fellow useful idiot Paul Krugman. Both of them are more than willing to change their argument as long as they can bash the Tea Party or Republicans in general. Under Bush, Krugman that budget defecits were bad, now under Obama defecits are no problem at all.
The perverse ignorance of Tom Friedman defies belief. It takes a very intelligent blind spot to ignore the fact that Muslim women wearing black tents are victims of lifelong abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, in the home. The testimony to that effect is all over the place — see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for just one witness. And yet — the Friedmans of this world manage to collude with criminal misbehavior around the world, as dictated by Shari’a law. Incredible. Just incredible.
“they are a political entity with conservative religious values.”
And that’s different from a religious entity with political “values” how exactly?
Frankly, anyone who has convinced themselves that the religious maniacs in Iran are any different, politically and religiously speaking, from the MB maniacs of Egypt, needs some remedial education re the religion of Islam, you see what an awful lot of westerners genuinely fail to grasp is that in Islam world, politics and religion are the one and the same.
Egypt and libya and yemen and tunisia and morroco etc were run by Muslims who were secular, socialist type Baathists, it is about to be run by Muslims who are Islamists, Whabbi type religious lunatics, the two things are not the same, Muslims who are Islamists are not the same as Muslims who are secularists, the MB are Islamists who cannot, by definition be “secular”
As I say, it would appear plenty of westerners need some remedial education as to the nature of islamism.
I must admit I do find difficult to understand the contortions some people engage in to deny the obvious, the MB themselves have said, on numerous occassions, that the new Egypt will be governed according to Islamic law, hate to tell you this but if you don’t understand something as basic as what “governed according to Islamic law” means then there is absolutely zero point in continuing this virtual conversation.
Regards, AS.
And you are the one who needs that remedial education. The mullahs who rule Iran are themselves clerics and the MB are not. One is Shia and the other Sunni. Look at the Constitution of Iran – in effect God rules Iran. Look at the proposed and old Constitutions of Egypt which will be very similar. The MB is just short of a majority in Parliament and they are not clerics.
The MB are a political entity with conservative religious values and in Iran the rulers (and the MB are NOT rulers) are a religious entity with some political values attached. One rules absolutely despite fake elections and the MB is answerable to the voter, despite claims they are suddenly in power ala Iran.
You are making false equivalencies based on wishful thinking, trying to put a square peg in a round hole because all Islam is just Islam.
The MB are NOT Wahabbis, the salafis are and the MB is by definition secular no matter their aims – they are not religious clergy. What is so hard to understand about that?
The term “Islamic Law” means different things throughout the Sunni world and this is even more so in the Shi’ite world. Adapt your views to reality rather than the other way around and you might find yourself with something to say other than Egypt is the next Iran. It’s been a year – what the hell are all these powerful Islamists waiting for? Even in a country like Egypt which everyone says is Islamist and hates the West the Islamist can’t and haven’t seized power – what is so hard to understand – just read a newspaper and accept these facts. Stop making excuses for facts and live with them.
By the way, I am not arguing that the values of the MB are not depraved although to me it is not in the social values for themselves that this depravity mostly lies but in their endemic hostility to non-Muslim ways of thought.
We have plenty of gov’t sanctioned depravity in the West with stupid hate-crime and hate-speech laws which mostly protect racists rather than the opposite. Does one have to make a list starting with the Village Voice’s massive pandering of prostitution?
The point is that the MB is a different entity from Islamists like in Iran. Does the MB totally want their agenda enforced? Of course. Does that make them a group that would like to seize power? Maybe. Can the MB seize power? There is no sign of it. I have no idea why people pillory Friedman for stating the obvious: the MB actually did give in to political reality and submit themselves to the vote. How is that the opposite of political reality? Because you don’t like them and so see that as just playing a cat and mouse game? Well, guess what, that cat and mouse game is the MB submitting themselves to political realities, the ones you all claim are non-existent though they are in front of your face.
The MB aren’t going to seize power, they are going to be handed it by the voters.
The MB, Sunni, Shia, the mullahs, salamis, Whabbi’s, hezbollah, Hamas, alky Ada, all of them, they are all islamic religious maniacs, in Islam anyone can be an imam, anytime they wish, al qaudari has been “formally” trained as a “cleric” but anyone, anyone can be an “imam” all they have to do is raise their hand and volunteer to lead the prayers.
You are deluding yourself if you think the MB are secular, you really are.
The motto of The Society of the Muslim Brothers (جمعية الأخوان المسلمون Jamiat al-Ikhwan al-muslimun) is
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”
Now if you honestly believe that a political party with that as its motto is secular then there really isn’t anything left to discuss.
If it makes you feel better to convince yourself that the MB are secular then fine, great, just don’t get too upset when Egypt turns into a clone of Saudi or Iran, because that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Hamas are also MB, I suppose you think they are secular too.
As I say, if it makes you feel better about the absolute disaster this Arab spring has become, then fine, you carryon believing these Islamic religious maniacs are “secular” just don’t expect people such as myself to take you seriously after they have instituted sharia law, “secular” or otherwise.
The MB are going to win the Egypt election by a landslide, surely you can see that 100 foot writing on the wall.
Well I guess the fact an imam in Iran has a connection to god and one in Egypt doesn’t is meaningless and I guess all Muslims are “warriors” and so are buildings too and voting equals dictatorship and potatoes are the Devil’s Tool.
Thanks for shrinking our dictionary to match your understanding of events. Everything is just whatever you want it to be.
about the muslim brotherhood genocidal jew-hating islamic maniacs, but all wrong to say apologists for the brotherhood like jeff turnbull, who in his responses studiously avoids even mentioning those genocidal maniacs in his responses, are deluded about them. far from it. that silence is deafening. the silence is not a reflexive inability to confront the reality of their existence or to gloss over it for the sake of argument, but rather a tacit acceptance and approval of those genocidal jew-hating maniacs’ aims.
You can’t fight an enemy until you know you’re enemy. Gross mischaracterizations are the equivalent of crying “wolf” or worse yet, even creating sympathy for the MB. You’re the one making friends for the MB; I am trying to show them as they are. Yelling about Egypt attacking Israel or people cutting off heads is easily disproved and so people who might’ve listened stop listening because they realize what you have to offer is not info but disdain.
” I guess all Muslims are “warriors” ”
All Muslims? No of course not.
All Islamists? Yes
” Everything is just whatever you want it to be.”
I wish, sadly the real world doesn’t work that way, it may in your deluded leftist la la land, but not out here in the real world.
I think I was in error in not affording you the normal leftist imbecile tag, it’s quite obvious you do indeed warrant such a description .
Willful ignorance, the hallmark of all good Leftists.
If that offends, too bad, I am way passed the point of taking the slightest bit of notice to virtual leftist faux outrage, it’s a conservative thing, I am one of those people who have simply had enough of puerile Leftists who throw around abuse like confetti and yet cry like babies whenever they get a taste of their own medicine.
At least you didn’t cry “troll” like all the other childish leftist loons whenever someone comes along and spoils their puerile delusions of grandeur, maybe there is hope for you yet.
You don’t rebut facts because other than broad stereotypes you are in no possession of facts to rebut. Then come insults rather than info. Just admit you have no idea of what’s happening in Egypt. It’s not that big a deal to say that.
In this article Thomas Friedman goes all-out to explain that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t radical, isn’t a threat, in fact is a good thing, and will only become even more moderate once it is in power. – Hey maybe he believes all Islamic Muslim Terrorists should be put into power and then they would all become moderates.
“You don’t rebut facts because other than broad stereotypes you are in no possession of facts to rebut.”
Really?
Here’s a fact, Dr Rashad Bayoumi, the second in command of the MB said this recently:
“We will not recognize Israel under any circumstances; we are talking about an occupation entity and a criminal enemy,”
“There is no condition that obligates the movement to recognize Israel,”
When speaking to credulous leftist “progressive” imbeciles the MB talk and sound all psuedo “moderate” and idiots such as yourself lap it up, however when speaking to their bretheren they say the complete opposite, when this is pointed out these very same leftist progressives get all indignant and start with their “it’s been taken out of context” or “the translation is suspect” narratives.
It seems Leftists just can’t handle the facts.
For instance, credulous leftist loons would no doubt interpret the following statement by the MB deputy as being a very reasonable, “progressive” and prudent step for the MB to take:
“This is an agreement that was formulated and signed far from the eyes of the people and the Parliament, so we must return this agreement to the people and let them have their say about whether this agreement hurts Egyptian interests and sovereignty,”
Whereas people such as myself, who have spent many years in the middle east, know right away that the above statement is nothing more than a sop to idiot liberal westerners, a ruse, a card to be played once the referendum result is in, the Egyptian muslims will vote to cancel the treaty, the MB will go on TV and proclaim “hey look, we are using your democratic method and behold, the people don’t want the treaty with the Jews”.
And ignorant know nothing Leftists will lap it up.
A senior Egyptian journalist told Haaretz, however, that this position could change after the government is formed.
The MB are seeking international legitimacy, especially amongst Western countries, and to cancel the peace treaty now would be to invite suspicion from idiot leftists, idiot leftists such as those who, for the moment, are in charge of the White House, this represents a risk of their plan becoming apparent, even to idiot puerile Leftists, before the due date.
“Then come insults rather than info.”
You started it slick, or have you chosen to ignore your own words as completely as you do those of Islamic maniacs? When an arrogant puerile leftist condescendingly writes “everything is just whatever you want it to be” what do you expect a person such as myself to do? Simply shut up? Take your absurdly childish remark without reply?
No, I don’t think so, as I say I have had enough of you idiot Leftists getting a free pass, this conservative for one isn’t going to tolerate it anymore, the situation is much too serious to allow you idiot Leftists any leeway, the adults must stand up and take charge of the situation, leaving such a seriously dangerous situation to idiot Leftists is no longer an option, your credulousness is no longer just laughably infantile it’s genuinely dangerous.
“Just admit you have no idea of what’s happening in Egypt.” it aint people such as myself that has no clue about what’s happening all over the middle east it’s idiot childlike leftists such as your credulous self.
“It’s not that big a deal to say that.”
Jeez man, how old are you?
At least try to express yourself as an adult, even if you lack the ability to offer up a cogent response surely you can pretend to be a grown up?
Being grown up would be to read the part where I use the words “depraved” and “depravity” to describe the MB. Being a child would be to ignore that and write that my “responses studiously avoids even mentioning those genocidal maniacs in his responses.” Love the repetition.
Being a child would be to start bringing up facts and arguments I have not challenged which is what you have done. The grown up argument was in contesting the idea that the MB already comprise or will comprise some dictatorship, not what their aims were. Their aims are obvious while the purposeful omission of the exact mechanism whereby sitting 50% in parliament the MB suddenly comes into absolute power with dumb and unsourced myths about “deals” with the army and then we’re partying like it’s 1979.
Does the irony of suggesting the MB is already on their way to total power but needed a vote to do it totally escape you? Slapping Iran and Germany onto that while ignoring all the times democracy has marched on is stupid. This is Egypt with its own story. Address that story and don’t try and enlarge what you don’t know by using histories about Germany easily available and then substituting those mechanisms.
Dumb. My cat might like to take over the world and eat everything it wants. Unless you can make that “threat” valid in a real world sense, bigoted morons might actually have to play politics. And no my cat isn’t like Iran 1979. It’s my cat.
You seem genuinely incapable of grasping it, this “political reality” you chime on about is the default excuse of an imbecile who willfully chooses to ignore history, you claim the MB “will” have to accept the “political reality” , you mock the reality of the Iranian example, you ignore the Hamas example, you cling to your “they will have to accept the political reality” in the way a child clings to his favorite blanket, the fact that these maniacs are intent on changing the “political reality” doesn’t seem to compute.
Hamas, a MB party, used democracy to end democracy, yet you ignore this fact and offer only platitudes, childish utopian garbage such as ” Slapping Iran and Germany onto that while ignoring all the times democracy has marched on is stupid. This is Egypt with its own story”
And the pièce de résistance, the “bigoted moron” canard.
You sir are just another liberal fool, with a cat.
When the MB take over Egypt, which they are going to, scrap the treaty with Israel, which they are going to, and violently repress the Copts, which they are going to, don’t forget to tell your cat how much of a bigot was the person who told you it was going to happen was, in fact by then, as history has shown time and time and time again, you idiot Leftists will have convinced yourselves that it was we conservatives who “made” these Islamic maniacs act like savages, If only we had acted as childishly nieve as you liberals then everything would have been fine and dandy.
To call you liberals useful idiots is to insult the worlds idiots, you sir and those of your ilk, are monumental fools, to bring up “bigots” and your “cat” is embarrassingly absurd, I honestly feel rather embarrassed myself replying to such childish nonsense.
However, if it makes you feel good about your imbecility then plaese, by all means, when the MB take over Egypt and suppress democracy, tell the cat it wasn’t you and your idiot liberal comrades that totally deluded themselves, it was the bigoted conservatives that brought about dark age barbarism of the “new” Egypt.
If all else fails you could always blame Bush and Haliburton, that works for idiot liberals.
Sadly Mr Turnbill, I have spent enough time in the company of a fool, so this will be my last comment on this thread, we may cross tracks again, virtually speaking of course and we no doubt will espouse our views, it’s good to talk or rather “type” isn’t it, food for thought and all that jazz, no matter how stupid the respondent I always find it constructive and indeed fortifying to engage with idiot liberals, with their undoubted sincere but nonetheless nieve idiocy, they do me a great service, it no doubt won’t bring you any comfort but I thank you for your replies.
PS, you will of course no doubt be aware of the words “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”
Wise words indeed however I would suggest that something along the lines of “those who ignore past history and engage in wishful thinking are not only credlously nieve but dangerously deluded”
Reflect on that statement when the MB return Egypt to the dark ages, because I can assure you of this Mr Turnbill, they are going to do so.
Your first paragraph represents what knowledge the rest of Egypt doesn’t have? No one in Egypt is worried about a political party taking over and establishing a dictatorship. The fact that you can’t point to any evidence of a mechanism the MB could resort to to accomplish this points up your “analysis” as wishful thinking. So-called “deals” with the army are unsourced and amount to myths based on filling an invisible gap people like you can’t cross with logic and common sense and so you just make stuff up and voila, the MB are Iran, despite the fact the MB are not religious clergy or anything like Shi’ites. Apply you’re astute analysis to Turkey and tell me how that is a dictatorship, simply because you wish it so.
How hard is it to understand that this is not Gaza or Germany or that countries have made a successful transition from fascism or dictatorships to democracy? You think by ignoring the good and only seeing the bad you demonstrate proportion and true example?
The MB doesn’t have the ability to take over Egypt or scrap the treaty with Israel. Saying they do doesn’t make it so. You are ignoring the actual fact that the revolution was accomplished by people in the street and those people did not do so to trade Mubarak for an MB panel of dictators. Gaza is a small parcel with a radicalized populace that can in no way be compared to a country of 85 million people. You take over a few buildings and kill a few people and you take over Gaza; it’s the difference between taking over a city whose internal politics no one outside really cares about and a large country often portrayed as the leader of the Sunni world.
You never explain how the MB can take power without a vote or the irony of your admission. The MB were voted into about half of parliament as it will be seated. This is itself political reality in action already, a thing you deny that is right in front of you. The MB and salafis did NOT lead the revolution, they benefited from it.
If the Egyptian populace is as radical as you claim, there will be no need for the MB to seize power as the citizenry will be fully on board with whatever the MB wants. You have no idea what’s happening in Egypt – none at all and are merely trolling to feel good about yourself or cuz you’re bored or whatever.
The army is still in charge in Egypt and Parliament will be seated on the 23rd. On the 25th are big demonstrations that will celebrate and maybe riot the 1st anniversary of the revolution til the 11th of Feb. The MB is incapable of managing Egypt the way they wish and will have to resort to the vote and compromise. If they are kicked out of the next parliament they will simply be kicked out since they have no mechanisms to challenge a vote. That invisible mechanism so evident in retrospect in Germany and Iran is something you just make up to sound knowledgeable. Well guess what, this scene is not in retrospect and is in constant flux day after day and the person least able to comment on its outcome are people exactly like you.
It’s been a year and nothing Chicken Little’s like you have predicted has come to pass. You’re reduced to crowing about the Islamic voting trend while at the same time ignoring the vote itself as meaningless. Like I said before, it’s just whatever you want it to be.
The revolution happened a year ago, so what are these oh so powerful Islamist forces waiting for? The answer is that they HAVE to wait for the very political realities you say don’t exist for them and so Friedman is perfectly right. If he wasn’t, the Islamists would have a dictatorship. How is that so difficult to understand?
Egypt has supposedly been a democracy, but as a democracy it should be viewed under stronger scrutiny by the naive westerners. Every election that Mubarak “won”, he did so by a landslide of over 90%. During his 30 years in the presidency he conducted a number of “referendums” on several issues as well, all of which not surprisingly always turned in his favor with completely slanted percentages.
Now, “normal” people would frown when shown such amazing statistical election results. Any election with over 90% rate is “very rigged”, to say the least. True to the best Egypt’s tradition, whoever becomes the official candidate in the elections will get an impressive return. Western nations will feel a sense of pride witnessing Egypt’s “democracy”, without realizing that the whole election circus is just a joke. Democracy is as alien to Egypt as it is to any other arab country: The only time they can freely and truly achieve an above-90% consensus is when they are expressing their hatred towards Israel and/or Jews.
Hey Friedman! When are you going to move to Egypt and live under Sharia you so much praise?
Hunh? Well? What are you waiting for?? Get the frack out of the free world!
I went over this internet site and I believe you’ve lots of outstanding information , saved to favorites (:.