With Libya now moving to a Sharia-based system that will impose religious values on the population, Egypt is also rapidly moving toward an extreme Sharia based system. Indeed, Hesham al Ashry (the leader of the Salafists) announced this week that “I am the enemy of democracy.”
Businessman Naguib Sawiris now calls Egypt’s future “dim … bad.”
Al Ashry put the reality into perspective: “This is a big opportunity and it’s not going to go back. This was mentioned by the Prophet Mohammed. Peace be upon him. He said this was going to happen.” Thus, the freedom that led to the overthrow of Mubarak regime will now be extinguished to embrace a new form of oppression — just faith-based rather than tyrant-based repression.
One of the objections made to the intervention of the United States in Libya was that, in addition to the absence of any declaration from Congress, President Obama could bring bring about a more radical regime. Even at the time, Libyan rebels were known to have extremist elements, including some linked to Al Qaeda. Some of the same concerns were heard in our Egyptian policies. I am less critical of the Obama policy on Libya. Indeed, I thought the Administration struck the right tone — without military intervention. However, there is a general misconception that the “Arab Spring” necessarily means a triumph of democracy and human rights. Movements in both Libya and Egypt show the powerful pull of theocratic oppression. The denial of the separation of mosque and state (as well as religious freedom) undermines a host of other rights from free speech to free association. The Obama Administration undermined those rights further with its shocking support of a United Nation’s resolution that embraced the concept of blasphemy prosecutions.
With the move to Sharia law, Egypt is showing other signs of extremism. Sectarian violence, particularly against Christians, has increased with little intervention from the military.
The loss of Egypt to religious extremism would be extremely destabilizing for the regime. It will also raise a question of our continued massive support for the country. Even though we have cities and states breaking under economic pressures, we are still pouring billions in aid to both Israel and Egypt.
Oh and it’s about to get explosive this movement you can see it coming and the allegations are adding fuel to the fire.
I don’t know where I posted it but it’s starting. The worse the movement gets, the more they are gonna play soundbites of Obama, Pelosi and airbody else who supported this movement with bad images for the background. I can see it now.
Fires with cars overturned and Pelosi saying God Bless them and Obama saying he supports them because he knows alot of people are frustrated.
The Democratic party is ruined and you have Pelosi Reid and Obama to thank for it.
Bdaman,
You are kidding, aren’t you? If the OWS is a millstone around anyone’s neck it will be your friends on the Right. It is amazing that it is called class warfare when the rich get away with financial murder and get huge tax breaks, but it is not class warfare when most of the Teapublican candidates want to raise taxes on the middle class. Hypocrisy maybe?
I think you meant to say priceless.
Rudy Rudy Rudy Rudy
“I believe that Barack Obama owns the Occupy Wall Street movement,” Rudy Giuliani said at the Defending the American Dream Summit. “It would not have happened, it would not have happened but for his class warfare. And remember, as it gets worse and worse because it’s going to get worse and worse, where it came from. Barack Obama. He praised it. He supported it. He agrees with it. He sympathizes with it. And as it gets worse and worse, I believe this will be the millstone around Barack Obama’s neck that will take his presidency down.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/04/giuliani_ows_is_millstone_around_obamas_neck_that_will_take_presidency_down.html
people who have little knowledge of economics make your exact same arguments.
But keep on believing you have a clue, it is absolutely precious.
the people who received government funds should not have been bailed out. they should have been allowed to fail. the crime is in the 700-800 billion given to them to remain afloat. the crime is that even banks which did not need the bail out funds were forced to take them.
OWS is full of morons who had a good point about wall st receiving bail outs. if they had stuck to that it would have been a good thing.
Now they are just promulgating what you support and are making the same tired arguments but not as well because they dont have your rhetorical skills.
Gene H:
here is a video, you can watch the first few minutes and see your arguments articulated by the first guy.
At least you can put lipstick on a pig.
You also still haven’t explained how your logic on OWS isn’t corollary to the logic that the followers Gandhi were responsible for the conditions leading to the Indian revolution and not the British Raj for being occupiers, Bdaman.
Less about me, boys, and more about the argument.
Otherwise, I’m just going to keep making you look ridiculous.
Bdaman,
That’s a remarkable talent you have to live in constant denial about such a broad range of subjects.
Prove how looking out for millions of individuals interests in seeking justice over the interests of the few means I don’t care about individuals.
The bottom line is that you can’t, so you try to distract instead.
Gene come on man. Stop being the tuff guy all the time, it’s old. Go back to being Buddha it is was more entertaining. I hate to admit it, but not only did I like you more, I had more respect for you then.
Or you can call me a bunch of names you don’t know the meaning of and run away some more.
“When I change a few words in your “arguments” and insert my side, it becomes readily apparent that your arguments are really nothing but rhetorical flourishes and not substantive at all.”
No, what becomes readily apparent is that you have no substantive counter-argument.
As for what a real argument looks like? Get back to me when you’ve demonstrated you know what one looks like.
Gene H:
When I change a few words in your “arguments” and insert my side, it becomes readily apparent that your arguments are really nothing but rhetorical flourishes and not substantive at all.
A real argument wouldnt make sense when doing that.
Then if you don’t dislike me and instead dislike my ideas, stick to trying to prove them wrong instead of trying to make things personal when I make your ideals look as foolish and unrealistic as they actually are.
Your estimation of your intelligence is highly overrated.
Gene H:
“You don’t like me. We all get it.”
I dont know you, the only time I think about you is to respond to your comments. And actually I am only thinking about what you wrote, not you in particular. What I dont like are your ideas which ultimately limit human freedom and prosperity. That you dont see that is fascinating to me, because unlike most statists you dont believe in power per se, you actually believe in helping people. The more intelligent statists use people like you to promote their lust for power.
Your estimation of your importance is highly overrated.
So I take it you have no proof that in looking out for millions of individuals interests in seeking justice over the interests of the few means I don’t care about individuals? Or that I’m a socialist? Or that you even know what a socialist actually might be other than someone who disagrees with your your laissez faire religious beliefs? Or that government is the sole bad guy in this scenario?
You really do argue like a child, Bron.
Gene H:
The problem isn’t industry. The problem is industry co-opted by government. But that fact simply trashes your blind faith in socialism and the inherent good will of bureaucrats. It’s not my fault you chose your religion poorly.
“You’re doing so because 1) you’re not very bright and fail to realize it was these kinds of policies that created the Wall St. Fiasco and 2) it’s your religious conviction that the un-scientific and increasingly discredited Austrian School of Economics view is right.”
Not an argument. Simply more name calling using terms you don’t really understand. You can call me a venal apologist all you like and it doesn’t make me one. You can call me a capitalist (when I’m critical of businesses that take government subsidies) and it still doesn’t make me a venal apologist. You can create yet more straw men to try to insert into my arguments and that doesn’t make them true. It simply means 1) you are incapable of arguing in any kind of good faith and 2) you’re dumb enough to think that using easily discredited tactics over and over again is some kind of victory.
As to your assessment of my intelligence? Really. Don’t make me laugh, Mr. Doesn’t Know the Meanings of Words He Uses. You don’t like me. We all get it. Too bad for you I don’t care what the ignorant and the brainwashed think of me, let alone someone who is that paragon of ignorance, a socialist. Too bad for you too that I don’t respond to your animus with simply more hatred, but rather with ridicule and indifference.
Or you can tell me I’m full of shit again for providing the very definition of what a straw man argument is.
That’s just funny in itself.