chicot
-
Posts
1,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by chicot
-
-
You all remember the theory...plant a democracy in the middle of the Middle East and it will spread. Well, now we have Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain all undergoing change in a democratic direction...
I know it's a revolting thought, but was W right about the inevitibility of the spread of Democracy in the Middle East?
And as a semi-related comment, why hasn't this turmoil spread to Syria? You'd think of all places that would be one place that would experience this kind of thing.
W was actually right about the spread of democracy in the Middle East but it has little to nothing to do with Iraq, in fact Iraq is now also seeing protests against the government. It was Tunisia that was the catalyst - people realised that if they all stood up to these dictators they could actually be toppled. Egypt then confirmed it and now, even though Gaddafi seems to be using every means at his disposal, it seems he's doomed as well.
As for Syria, I think one reason may be that Assad is not as unpopular as these long-serving dictators and he has actually been making some reforms. Still, if the domino effect continues that could change.
-
What do you think the odds are of a revolt in Iran?
Slim to none. Unlike Mubarak, who seems to have had very little true support, there is actually quite a lot of support for the Iranian regime especially in rural areas. In addition to that, I think the Iranian army is pretty well controlled unlike the Egyptian army, which basically washed it hands of Mubarak. No, I think Algeria, Libya and Yemen are much better bets for revolution than Iran.
-
Compare the photo's of the Egyptian celebrations to the ones in Iraq. It further shows that the Egyptians were motivated and the Iraqi's not so much.
Very different circumstances.
-
I don't know if it's square or round, but 100,000 people have been there for 3 weeks and not a port-a-potty in sight
Actually there are toilets. Not the greatest admittedly but still.
-
Now CNN's reporting Mubarak just stepped down.
Look for him to sign a 1-year contract with Syria, next...
No, 70 billion dollars should be enough for him not to need to work again.
-
They were both consenting adults. Much ado about nothing.
-
Ok, Chicot you would be wrong in calling me a racist. I called Palestinians a hominid species outside of our genus. Fact is we are all related to the Australopithecus , we share a common ancestor. All I said was that Palestinians were MORE closely related to the Australopithecus then Jews, which is not inherently racist. I'm the one who should be offended here.
If you truly had some wierd and ignorant belief that Palestinians were more closely related to the Australopithecus than Jews then I apologize for mistaking your stupidity for racism. If, on the other hand, you were trying to imply that Palestinians are somehow less evolved than other humans then my original assertion stands and you are indeed a racist. You're the only one who knows for sure whether you deserve an apology or not.
-
ROTFL, Ok before I accept the tittle of racist can someone explain to me what racism is because it does not seem to be based on race. Science makes no distinction, we are all Homo sapiens sapiens. Would calling me an anti-sapiens be more accurate or maybe anti-homo?
Definition of race:
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
You're assuming race has to mean 4) but it can also mean 1-3.
-
Yeah...I don't know where you got that "Palestinians are closer..." crap, when all homo sapiens is evolved from Lucy. I mean, really, that was just too stupid to be racist...
...which is a neat trick, really, considering how stupid racism usually is.
I disagree. I think his intent was innocent, but brainless.
I mean, maybe I'm being generous here...but this would be the first overtly racist thing I've ever seen him post (on a board where we've had more than a few preaching Nazi eugenics) if he were really, truly saying Palestinians are so much closer to orangutans than Jews.
Fair enough. I'll assume he's brainless rather than racist then.
-
We're all equally close australopithecus africensis. Don't confuse his ignorance with racism.
I think you're confusing his racism with ignorance
I think his intent was pretty clear and, to me, to try and imply that any people or ethnic group is subhuman is racism pure and simple. -
The Palestinians are a closer genetic brother to australopithecus afarensis then to Jews.
My apologies. I never realised you were a racist. Sorry to keep you from your KKK meeting.
-
Israel became a nation about 1300 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. The myth of a Palestinian nation was created and marketed worldwide. Jews come from Judea, not Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian, or any Palestinian culture distinct from that of all the Arabs in the area. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.
Actually the people now known as Palestinians have been there as long as have the Jews. That they had not yet become muslims does not change the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinians were in fact there. The truly ironic thing is that genetically the Jews and Arabs are quite closely related - they just chose to have different imaginary friends. Regardless of how we got here, the fact is the Israelis are going nowhere and neither are the Palestinians. The status quo is untenable. It is in Israel's own best interest to come to an agreement now when it is in a position of strength rather than have one forced upon them when this is no longer the case.
Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese
-
Israel offered the Arabs ("palesteinians" is made up recently) the same rights when it was formed. They wanted it all, so Israel told the to get out if they didn't like it. Jordan wised up to these a-holes and kicked them out too. Syria is hiding behind them to constantly shell Israel. When ISrael retaliates to protect itself, it gets lambasted for "attacking".
Assuming you are referring to the partition plan, you may consider that offering 56% of the land to a people who comprised only 33% (and of those many were very recent arrivals) of the population a fair and just solution. I do not. In any event, the Zionists never intended to stick to the partition plan either - it was always their intention to grab as much land as they possibly could.
“after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” Ben Gurion
“The partition of the Homeland is illegal . It will never be recognized.The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever“. Menachem Begin
-
And it won't be easy. Nassar's lust for power stifled democracy for the next 60 years and his misguided economic policies of consolidating wealth in the government had the predictable results: destruction of those necessary institutions, a bloated, corrupt, unresponsive gov't, increased poverty, and the impetus for millions of educated Egyptians to seek greener pastures in the West.
Lets hope the new revolutionaries don't repeat those mistakes.
To be honest, I dont know that much about Nasser save for that fact that many Arabs revere him even today as he is seen as the only Arab leader willing to stand up to the West and Israel (noble failure being considered preferable to subservience). Your criticisms of him may be fair and valid as far as I know. Having said that, he was in control of Egypt for under 20 years. Sadat and Mubarak together had 40 years in which they could have rectified matters. They did not do so, instead using their time in office to line their own pockets and those of their cronies. For all his faults, that is one thing that Nasser never did.
-
Are you talking about Palestinians or the kurds? Can't keep the two straight.
But that's the beauty of the argument about Israel. Polite society wants to ignore that they live among a backward societies, and expect them to behave as if they're having tea with the Queen. But that cannot happen - so it's either wait for the arab world to join the modern age, or have Israel descend into middle ages. You cannot strike a bargain with a party that lives in a different world.
I think people get caught up in the democracy word But without the proper institutions and laws, there's no difference from a mob rule, and that's where this is heading. There's absolutely no reason to wish Mubarak to stay. There's even a worse reason to wish him leave prematurely.
Revolutions are seldom neat and tidy. You chide the arab world about being "backwards" and want them to join the modern age and yet when they try to do so, you get nervous. The demonstrations in Egypt were quite peaceful until Mubarak decided to send his goons into action. Institutions and laws do not just come into being - they need to be created. Getting rid of a corrupt dictator is a first step on the road to doing that.
-
So if I understand you correctly, it's wrong for a nation to self determine that it wants to be a Jewish state and it should open its borders to those who wish to eliminate it, because it's the right thing to do?
Since there's likely trepidation on the Israeli Jews' part about the Arab world's intentions if the Palestinians actually gain the right of full return to Israel proper, let's have the Arab world extend an olive branch and open up an Arab country to returning Jews & Christians and see how that works out.
Maybe they wouldn't want to eliminate it if they were allowed to live in it as equal citizens. It's quite hard to look kindly upon a nation whose creation caused you to lose everything and whose laws forbid you to return on the grounds that you are of the wrong ethnic group.
As I have always said, the right of return whether based on actual return or financial compensation should apply equally to Palestinians forced to leave Palestine and Jews forced to leave Arab nations.
BTW what do you think of the goings on in Egypt? Are you in favour of democracy in Egypt, no matter what form of government they choose or would you prefer a friendly dictator?
-
I think we should give North America back to the Indians or maybe split power in both houses with them. Their customs are eggzactery like ours!!. I think it could work!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Indians have the right to become full and equal citizens of the US?
Likewise, I think Israel shoud have the right to strike any such nation when their security is threatened without interference.
Yes, they should have the same right of self defence that any other nation has.
-
I don't intend to. I dont think any Arab nation should normalize relations with Israel or have peace treaties with them until there is a fair resolution to the Palestinian plight.
-
Unbelievable!
No, it's an incredibly stupid statement
Not in the least. I would like to see the end of the current Israeli state and it's replacement with a bi-national state in which the rights of all it's citizens (both Jewish and Arab) would be guaranteed. I believe that both Israelis and Palestinians have an equal right to the land of Israel/Palestine and thus it should be shared by them both. That does not mean that I wish all Israelis to be killed.
-
I'm not interested in debating it with you, and I apologize for responding sarcarstically to your comment that the Muslim Brotherhood is a fairly moderate organization. Hard as it may be for you or Tom to believe, I'm not so much of a dolt that I see the word "Muslim" and immediately equate it to evil. While I am surprised at the intense laziness it takes to paint that broad stroke on someone who posts here on a regular basis and NEVER comments that Muslim=evil, the reality is simply that in listening and reading news from the US sporadically during the past few days (and no, it's not just me and Fox News), the simple truth appears to be that everyone is wrong and the real problem with the Muslim Brotherhood is that it just needs a better press secretary.
All the news reports pretty much agree that they're a bad group who want to kill all Isrealis. So you'll forgive me for seeing this reported pretty much across the US and not checking with the Council on Foreign Relations for the truth.
This seems to be an incredibly hard concept for many to grasp but wanting to see the end of the current regime in Israel, even wanting to see the end of the current Israeli state does not actually equal wanting to "kill all Israelis", just as wanting to see an end to the Apartheid regime in South Africa didn't mean that you wanted to see all the white South Africans killed.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri
I know, I know, it's Wiki, but it appears that al-Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherood. Any organization that includes a douche-bag of that order in its roster isn't one I'd want to have to do business with.
So they should have expelled him for something he was going to do in the future?
Chicot....their mission statement or motto states they want to form a Caliphate and do so THROUGH VIOLENCE.
That is their STATED MISSION.
Cut the ****.
Again, let them have Egypt and whatever pile of sand they want. But go one step towards Israel or !@#$ with the shipping lanes and expect to meet the business end of a JDAM.
Deal?
I'm not quite sure why exactly it is the US's job to defend Israel. I would have thought with their large nuclear arsenal they were well capable of defending themselves.
As for their mission statement, I guess that depends on who you want to believe. If you're hellbent on believing that the muslim brotherhood are a grave threat to western civilization I doubt I could convince you otherwise. Here's a snippet from the council of foreign relations article I linked to earlier:
"Establishing an Islamic state based on sharia is at the center of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology, both in Egypt and among the group's many offshoots abroad. But the Brotherhood in Egypt has often said it is committed to gradual and peaceful Islamization and only with the consensus of Egypt's citizens. In recent times, some leaders have dismissed the idea of an Islamic state and expressed commitment to work with other secular and liberal parties."
-
That's like the old floral-patterned sofa in the basement. In January, everyone says it has to get thrown out once the snow melts... and yet, five years later, it's still there. Sometimes, initiative needs to be taken when the will is strong, or else it'll never get done.
Leave Mubarak in power for 8 months, and their army soon will become very political.
That's it exactly. The worry is that Mubarak uses the time to try and cling on. Incidentally, the article you linked to in a previous post made a very interesting point about the muslim brotherhood. The reason the muslim brotherhood was the most powerful political opponent of Mubarak is precisely because he wanted it that way. He could go to the West and ask for their support claiming that it was him or radical Islam as the alternative. If (I know it's a big if) Egypt does become a free democracy I very much doubt it will be such a major player once more moderate and secular political parties are allowed to form.
-
Valid point...but doesn't Egypt already have a constitution? Is there something wrong with it, or is Mubarak simply not following it?
And if an apolitical organization steps in as a "caretaker" government, is it still apolitical? Are they still going to be trusted after being given civil governmental power? And re-read my previous post - my visualization of the army's role was as a LAST resort (Mubarak doesn't do what he's publicly agreed to do), not a first one.
My main point is: there's a lot of ways to set a very bad set of precedents on which to base a new government (immediate deposition of Mubarak, violent revolution, military takeover - benign or not). There's fewer, and much more difficult, good ones.
I think the problem is that the anti-Mubarak protestors have zero trust in Mubarak and his word, and fear that he's going to use the interim period to try and cling on to power or at least try and perpetuate his corrupt system.
I'm not sure of what the current Egyptian contitution is but a new one seems to be a key demand of the protestors.
-
That's totally my bad. I completely bought into that whole "We hate Israel and can't wait to destroy it" rhetoric I was hearing.
I swear those Jews can be so paranoid sometimes.
I can see there's not really not much point in trying to debate any of this with you so I wont bother any more.
Is W now vindicated?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
So getting rid of Saddam (a sworn enemy of Iran) and replacing him with a Shiite-dominated government on very friendly terms with Iran somehow helps to box them in