|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US papers saw the protests in Tunisia as quaint. They'll flip out about Egypt. A different government in Egypt would be hell for Plucky Little Israel:
http://www.businessinsider.com/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-revolution-2011-1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23kaplan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
| Quote: |
| Another thing to keep in mind: in terms of American interests and regional peace, there is plenty of peril in democracy. It was not democrats, but Arab autocrats, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who made peace with Israel. An autocrat firmly in charge can make concessions more easily than can a weak, elected leader � just witness the fragility of Mahmoud Abbas�s West Bank government. And it was democracy that brought the extremists of Hamas to power in Gaza. In fact, do we really want a relatively enlightened leader like King Abdullah in Jordan undermined by widespread street demonstrations? We should be careful what we wish for in the Middle East. |
The New York Times. That island of liberal thoughts about human rights, freedoms and the rest (unless Israel is at risk, then mother fu&k those A-rabs). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
The US papers saw the protests in Tunisia as quaint. They'll flip out about Egypt. A different government in Egypt would be hell for Plucky Little Israel:
http://www.businessinsider.com/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-revolution-2011-1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23kaplan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
| Quote: |
| Another thing to keep in mind: in terms of American interests and regional peace, there is plenty of peril in democracy. It was not democrats, but Arab autocrats, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who made peace with Israel. An autocrat firmly in charge can make concessions more easily than can a weak, elected leader � just witness the fragility of Mahmoud Abbas�s West Bank government. And it was democracy that brought the extremists of Hamas to power in Gaza. In fact, do we really want a relatively enlightened leader like King Abdullah in Jordan undermined by widespread street demonstrations? We should be careful what we wish for in the Middle East. |
The New York Times. That island of liberal thoughts about human rights, freedoms and the rest (unless Israel is at risk, then mother fu&k those A-rabs). |
With Egypt, there's a real risk of Islamists coming to power. The NYTimes is right about there being peril in democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peril for whom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Peril for whom? |
For the Egyptians ruled by Islamists! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Right. They'd elect them, because it is a muslim society. It is what they would want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Right. They'd elect them, because it is a muslim society. It is what they would want. |
True enough. Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly. In my country freedom of speech has been thrown in trash by Totalitarian Humanists to the apparent applause of the intellectual class and professional dissidents (Canadian Imams). Average Canadians are (rightly, maybe) more worried about Sydney Crosby's head injury. If the Brotherhood comes to power then Egyptian women might start showing less hair. Every society sucks in unique ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
The US papers saw the protests in Tunisia as quaint. They'll flip out about Egypt. A different government in Egypt would be hell for Plucky Little Israel:
http://www.businessinsider.com/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-revolution-2011-1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/opinion/23kaplan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
| Quote: |
| Another thing to keep in mind: in terms of American interests and regional peace, there is plenty of peril in democracy. It was not democrats, but Arab autocrats, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan, who made peace with Israel. An autocrat firmly in charge can make concessions more easily than can a weak, elected leader � just witness the fragility of Mahmoud Abbas�s West Bank government. And it was democracy that brought the extremists of Hamas to power in Gaza. In fact, do we really want a relatively enlightened leader like King Abdullah in Jordan undermined by widespread street demonstrations? We should be careful what we wish for in the Middle East. |
The New York Times. That island of liberal thoughts about human rights, freedoms and the rest (unless Israel is at risk, then mother fu&k those A-rabs). |
With Egypt, there's a real risk of Islamists coming to power. The NYTimes is right about there being peril in democracy. |
Peril? For Israel, yes. For other countries? I'm skeptical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| If the Brotherhood comes to power then Egyptian women might start showing less hair. |
I don't consider that a sufficient example of Islamism. A Muslim democracy would be welcome, an Islamist party coming to power under a democracy would be unwelcome.
Islam v. Islamism
| Quote: |
Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.
The word "Islamism" is highly appropriate, for this is an "-ism" like other "-isms" such as fascism and nationalism. Islamism turns the bits and pieces within Islam that deal with politics, economics, and military affairs into a sustained and systematic program. As the leader of the Muslim Brethren put it some years ago, "the Muslims are not socialist nor capitalist; they are Muslims." I find it very telling that he compares Muslims to socialists and capitalists and not to Christians or Jews. He is saying, we are not this "-ism," we are that "-ism." Islamism offers a way of approaching and controlling state power. It openly relies on state power for coercive purposes.
Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism. The details, of course, are very different from the preceding versions, but the ultimate purpose is very similar.
Islamism is also a total transformation of traditional Islam; it serves as a vehicle of modernization. The ideology deals with the problems of urban living, of working women and others at the cutting edge, and not the traditional concerns of farmers. As Olivier Roy, the French scholar, puts it, "Rather than a reaction against the modernization of Muslim societies, Islamism is a product of it." Islamism is not a medieval program but one that responds to the stress and strains of the twentieth century.
In this, Islamism is a huge change from traditional Islam. One illustration: Whereas traditional Islam's sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I don't consider that a sufficient example of Islamism. A Muslim democracy would be welcome, an Islamist party coming to power under a democracy would be unwelcome. |
As a NY Times reader commented:
| Quote: |
| To those of you who are dreading the final result of these protests should make up your minds: you are either for democracy or not. I am opposed to religious fundamentalism and dogma as much as anyone, but if the Egyptians want to bring that misery upon themselves that would be their call not ours. Please stop supporting rotten dictators just for the fear of what the a future democratic change might bring, particularly fearing that it might not be friendly to Israel. |
I agree with him (even though the first line sounds way too much like dubya): if they Egyptians want it, they should have it. Not once in Egypt's loooooooong history has the general populace ever had a say in who ruled them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To those of you who are dreading the final result of these protests should make up your minds: you are either for democracy or not. I am opposed to religious fundamentalism and dogma as much as anyone, but if the Egyptians want to bring that misery upon themselves that would be their call not ours. Please stop supporting rotten dictators just for the fear of what the a future democratic change might bring, particularly fearing that it might not be friendly to Israel. |
I agree with him (even though the first line sounds way too much like dubya): if they Egyptians want it, they should have it. Not once in Egypt's loooooooong history has the general populace ever had a say in who ruled them. |
No, sorry. If a democracy eats itself, like Weimar Germany did, and becomes a totalitarian state, it is a totalitarian state with popular support, not a democracy. Popularity alone fails to become a surrogate for the institutions of democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| To those of you who are dreading the final result of these protests should make up your minds: you are either for democracy or not. I am opposed to religious fundamentalism and dogma as much as anyone, but if the Egyptians want to bring that misery upon themselves that would be their call not ours. Please stop supporting rotten dictators just for the fear of what the a future democratic change might bring, particularly fearing that it might not be friendly to Israel. |
I agree with him (even though the first line sounds way too much like dubya): if they Egyptians want it, they should have it. Not once in Egypt's loooooooong history has the general populace ever had a say in who ruled them. |
No, sorry. If a democracy eats itself, like Weimar Germany did, and becomes a totalitarian state, it is a totalitarian state with popular support, not a democracy. Popularity alone fails to become a surrogate for the institutions of democracy. |
Fine, drop the democracy bit. If Egyptians want that form of government, let them have it. if the islamists take over, they won't be able to annull or cancel future elections simply due to the fact they have little to no influence over the military. Well ok, in the short term at least. perhaps they'll take a page from iran and create their own revolutionary guard to circumvent the current military leaders. On the other hand, there isn't an organized clergy like there is in Iran.
Point being I'm not overly concerned about Egypt becoming some type of theocracy in the near future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
if the islamists take over, they won't be able to annull or cancel future elections simply due to the fact they have little to no influence over the military. Well ok, in the short term at least. perhaps they'll take a page from iran and create their own revolutionary guard to circumvent the current military leaders. On the other hand, there isn't an organized clergy like there is in Iran.
Point being I'm not overly concerned about Egypt becoming some type of theocracy in the near future. |
Well, you know the region better than I do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam |
Doesn't Islam demand man's complete adherence, or rather 'submission' (for that is what Islam means), to the sacred law of Allah.
If an Islamic government is elected in Egypt, and insititutes the death penalty for apostasy, would that be an 'Islamist' policy, or simply an Islamic policy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|