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.
Then why are they trying those who murdered Gaddafi?
@Bdaman Thanks for providing the info. Dumb remark. In context not so bad. Was searching for SOMETHING that would encourage Congress to get to work. Not exactly calling for a dictatorship.
Lets see we now have Obama ruling by executive order. Next step Marshall law then dictatorship. Mission accomplished
Al Ashry sounds very much like the “Rick Perry of Egypt” in calling for a single-sect theocratic government. They have a democracy now too, so it will be up to the young people of both America and Egypt to reject this extremist muddling of church and state at the ballot box.
Well, from what I can tell….only 4 have posted here….hmmmm….I am sure you can do better….But then again…maybe you can’t….As this is your best….
When I don’t argue with myself about pros and cons, my gut reaction is to become isolationist. I think all of our aid to all Arab and/or Muslim countries should be diverted to our own infrastructure. Our troops should be brought home. We aren’t buying any friends in that part of the world.
The French Revolution with its excesses ended with Napoleon.
The Arab Revolutions may initially succum to Islamist fundamentalism, but eventually people will reject religious extremism after the Muslim nations wage war on each other. The ultimate peace is death.
Thanks Gene!
Cats and dogs and cold.
Hey Hugh … is it raining out by you?
I see my work here is done.
pete,
lol … one of my favorites … I like the drum work
Bron,
Actually both advertising and allowing them to write legislation are problems. What you fail to realize is that they are both forms of quid pro quo. He who pays, gets superior access. Be that in the form of bending an ear because you paid for ads or writing the laws in question.
“So you would limit a group of citizens forming a lobbying group for the purpose of educating politicians about their particular concern(s)?”
Yes, I absolutely would. Not their right to assemble. Not their right to petition.
I would limit their ability to spend any money on political campaigns or contributions beyond a universal individual maximum (as existed pre-Buckley).
Not a goddamn dime.
If they want to put together a white paper outlining their concerns and present that to the representatives, that’s all well and good. It should not come with rides on corporate jets or vacations or lunches or gifts or ads any of that other shady crap that goes on. By the same token, those white papers should not be given any more weight than letters by single constituents. Instead of playing golf all weekend and schmoozing? Every member of Congress should be chin deep in the reading material required to do their job properly. Heaven forbid those paid off jerkwads in Congress actually have to listen to their constituents needs and read and write law as they are supposed to under their Constitutional job description.
Free speech should be free in every meaning of the word free, but especially the right to petition.
Corporations should not be allowed to participate in the political process period. They aren’t real people. As such, they should not be allowed to lobby or have free speech and petition rights. They should be subject to regulation to create parameters of wrongdoing for which they and their officers can be held civilly and criminally liable, they should have access to the courts for dispute resolution and when they are victims of crime, but their participation in government should end there. Full stop. And if they don’t like the rules? Screw ’em. Let them go corrupt someone else’s country.
SwM,
I know … I started laughing at your first post (ran the Jo-code) and then when you misspelled your own name I started all over again … that’s when I decided to pour a coke.
I know what’s going to happen. One morning after my computer has run it’s overnight cleaning and back-up, I’m going to sign in and hit the wrong name and “Blouise Is Not Hene/Gene But She Wants To Be” or one of the “Blouise’s Fan” names is going to register on my first post.
Blouise, See I told you I could not be a good sockpuppet. I typed my name in wrong. I am an “idiot”.
Gene,
Probably, cause only dopers use it … 🙂
all people are equal in the eyes of the law. So you would limit a group of citizens forming a lobbying group for the purpose of educating politicians about their particular concern(s)?
I think the more pressing problem is the fact that congress does not write it’s own laws for the most part. That the laws we live under are written to benefit special interest groups whether they be unions, corporations, or AARP is the problem. And to the extent money allows and facilitates this process it is a problem.
Exxon-Mobil spending 200 million on advertising during a political election is not a problem, congressmen allowing Exxon-Mobil to write laws that will benefit them is.
Blouise’s Fan Does Not Like HermanCain
***
Neither does Lottakatz 🙂
I tried to write truth but sneaky old wordpress wouldn’t let me do it cause they said I already said that. Which I did as Blouise’s Fan Really Likes IHATEKATZ.
There are skills to sock puppetry that I need to pursue.
Does that mean sock puppetry is a gateway drug, Blouise?