Subj : Current events To : RICHARD WEBB From : BOB KLAHN Date : Sun Feb 13 2011 17:01:54 ... RW>> Mmmm, so far what I"ve been able to glean from various RW>> sources have mentioned muslim on Christian violence as one RW>> of the catalysts that set all this off in Egypt, and that RW>> points directly to the MB and the Qaedas. BK>> I haven't seen that. Do you have a link? I did see Islamic BK>> clergy gathering around Christian churches to protect them. RW> sOme of that noted in this article too. Sorry no link, RW> came from MEmphis Commercial appeal, iirc wire story, a RW> Sunday edition when this first started a couple weeks ago. I can't see why Muslim on Chriatian violence would have anything at all to do with the revolution. I wonder if anti-Islam people are playing this up. Or supporters of the (now former) dicator. BK>>> The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want BK>>> democracy. RW>> Many do, but there's the mb fly in the ointment. BK>> I suspect the MB would not like a Caliphate, that would mean they BK>> are ruled from somewhere else, probably Saudi Arabia. Oh, and until BK>> a few decades ago Egyptians denied they were Arabs, they called BK>> themselves Egyptians. RW> This is also true. I'd like to come right out and support RW> a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of RW> the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular" RW> revolutions is something like Iran. Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came after that. RW> THIs libertarian did RW> *not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way RW> propping up repressive governments with troops or money. RW> Not a dime, not a drop of American blood. LET those people RW> all kill each other in the name of their religion. Let those government all be told, if they require US intervention, the price will be democracy. Any dictatorship that requires the US to intervene against an invader will find it self a democracy afterwards. Under US guarantee, so they can't expect to come back afterwards. > RW>> Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee RW>> report of congress a bunch of information suppressed, RW>> because they don't really want to acknowledge that publicly. RW>> Anybody who's read on the subject a bit knows what was RW>> being obliquely referenced in the joint committee report, RW>> but heavily redacted from the public version. BK>> Just read Greg Palast. RW> DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject RW> over the years, the history is quite plain to anyone who RW> bothers to acquire real information. Oh, yeah. If you follow it for years you see what is unknown is really obvious, but you have to pay attention. ... BK>>> They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil. BK>>> Therefore they buy the politicians. RW>> NOt even all of the FBI counterterror folks were aware of RW>> it however. See above. BK>> With Saudis involved they wouldn't be allowed to be. RW> OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this RW> "groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read RW> just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc RW> last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first RW> then see what comes from there. Mubarak has been torturing leaders of the MB. So they want him gone in any case. I don't doubt the groundswell for democracy, mostly because it started with Tunisia and has spread from there. It exploded so fast I don't believe the MB had even a chance to understand what was happening. No one did. Not only was it unpredicted, I doubt it could have been predicted by any reasonable process. Sudan had had trouble for a long time, but the seperation of the South was voted this year. Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make changes. All in two months. The Muslim Brotherhood almost certainly is wandering around in shock at how this happened. RW> The question is what RW> they'll do if they get their wish. WIll they work with RW> secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all RW> the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their RW> ISlamic law? That's the question we should be asking, and RW> keep on asking before we pour in any support at all. That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that should decide our actions at this point. We need to support democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us. It's how we lost in Vietnam. We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people there. BTW, the idea that Islamic law is bad is something to wonder at. There is little if anything in Islamic law that isn't also in Jewish and Christian law. Cutting off people's hands and beheading them is not Islamic, it's Arabic. And it's also found in Christian history. As is stoning. Which comes from the Jewish tradition. On top of that, there is no "Sharia". There are many Sharias. Every Islamic community defines it's own Sharia. And Sharia is only applicable to Muslims. A Muslim cannot, under Islamic teaching, impose Sharia on a non-Muslim. Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we can make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own religious teachings and traditions. Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of Islamic fundamentalism. BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn .... I have a firm grip on reality. Now I can strangle it! --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg] * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140) .