E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-26-2013, 07:02 PM   #61
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
And Egypt can't have a democracy without the Muslim Brotherhood.

All they have left to do is fight. Ousting Morsi sent a message to all Islamists. Their legitimacy will not be accepted. The Islamist can look at the MB or at the Afghani Taliban. One group spent decades trying to obtain political legitimacy. The MB finally gained it through free elections only to be ousted. The other sought legitimacy through violence and now has a place at the negotiating table regarding Afghanistan's future.
+1
And our feckless President made all the wrong moves:
Wrong to push out Mubarak when he could have called for U.N. monitored elections and offered to help in the transition.
Wrong to not support the duly elected Government of Egypt.
Wrong to thump his chest about "red lines"
And looks like an ass trying to deny that the forcible removal of an elected government by the military is a coup.

Sad part is, we are all screwed.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:04 PM   #62
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post

Sometimes the best moral action is no action. No point in making a situation worse for the sake of "moral interests". I agree with the General.
Especially when there are no apparent "good guys" in Syria
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:04 PM   #63
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,365
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Opposition says as many as 1,300 killed in gas attack near Damascus

I only have a passing caring about Syria. Seems almost like two wrongs trying to somehow make some kind of right. Or maybe just balance each other out.

Or maybe they'll just kill each other. Either way, I don't particularly care.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:23 PM   #64
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBlaze View Post
I think you're right. Hussein killed like 300,000 of his own people, then the USA killed like 150,000 Iragi civilians in the first 3 years trying to help. Weapons of Mass Destruction include Chemical/Biological Weapons.

Is 1,300 enough for us to get involved? Probably not
Wonder where you got the 150,000 figure from? In January the U.N. estimated that at least 60,000 had been killed in Syria, so this 1300 is a drop in the bucket.

The only reason this is an issue is because the President ran his mouth off last year talking about "red lines" and "serious consequences". I say we stay out of this mess.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:41 PM   #65
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Shine View Post
Are we certain is was Syria's government?
NO

Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post
Reports are still varied on what actually occurred, so I don't think they know who did what, and when/why/etc.

Several weeks ago nerve gas was used and the U.S. was condemning Assad and his regime. Russia and other nations said there was no evidence and Obama and friends continued to insist it was Assad. After an investigation it was determined that it was the rebels that used the gas. Not Assad. But no one was vilifying the rebels. No one insisted on supporting Assad against the rebels.


I don't think that the rebels are any more moral than Assad. And I don't think that if they 'won' that they would be any friendlier towards the U.S. and the west than they are now. If the FBI arrests a bunch of gangbangers like the Bloods, does that mean that MS 13 and the Crips love the FBI and law enforcement any more ? Just because the Bloods were arrested and make it easier for the Crips and MS 13 to do their job slinging dope on the streets and establishing territory ?

If we support the rebels, it's not like they are going to be our friends and become our 'biatch'. They are still going to hate us, still want the U.S. out of the Middle East and they still want to destroy Israel. And they will become vindictive and kill anyone associated with Assad just like they did after Saddam in Iraq.




Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
The US should look to contain the situation to Syria. We have witnessed it spread out which could have a larger destabilizing effect. Also, quickly determine who used the chemical weapons. Let's hope it was the Syrian government. If it was the FSA that is an indicator that the Syrian military has lost control over its weapon stockpiles. With AQ alliances being the most effective and strongest resistance force in Syria the US would have big problems if those weapons were secured by AQ or its affiliates.

This civil war will be drawn out. It is just as much of a proxy war among state and non-state actors. I am unsure if US intervention will do anything except worsen the situation. Not to mention having US troops killed with US weapons wouldn't go over so well.

This is Syrian vs. Syrian and it is none of our business. As bad as chemical weapons are....they were not instigated by a third party. I don't understand the rush to war .......it sounds like Iraq 2. I wonder if Israel is the one behind America's push for war and retaliation with Syria. This way we would be fighting their war for them. But......if we attack Syria without provocation,......they have not attacked us.......it would inflame the ME further and give a legitimate reason for terrorists to attack the U.S. I wonder if terrorists will consider assaulting American interests in Afghanistan, Israel or even Turkey. Or, one of our many embassies overseas.





Quote:
Originally Posted by rosenrot88 View Post
It is BS, The opposition are a bunch of extremists. This was proven by the russians couple weeks ago. I say let Assad knock them down. If we get involved then we will create another Egypt.


Obama and Hillary are the ones that set the ME on fire. We had no business aiding rebels in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and now Syria. Let's not forget Yemen either.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Seems like Assad is saying that the sarin gas was deployed by the rebels. Would be a great way for them to yank the US into the conflict.

It is not unreasonable to think this. The rebels have captured several cities and several military posts have gone back and forth. And there might even be some people in Assad's Army that are compassionate to the rebels that secured the weapons and gave them to the rebels.


We have no business interfering. We have been at war since the Japanese attacked us on December 7, 1941. I wonder what peace feels like.
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------

Last edited by Raymond42262; 08-26-2013 at 07:50 PM.
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:49 PM   #66
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,365
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
Opposition says as many as 1,300 killed in gas attack near Damascus

Source on confirmation of opposition using chemical weapons?


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:56 PM   #67
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
Source on confirmation of opposition using chemical weapons?


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
the most recent attack or the one last month ?
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 07:57 PM   #68
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
+1
And our feckless President made all the wrong moves:
Wrong to push out Mubarak when he could have called for U.N. monitored elections and offered to help in the transition.
Wrong to not support the duly elected Government of Egypt.
Wrong to thump his chest about "red lines"
And looks like an ass trying to deny that the forcible removal of an elected government by the military is a coup.

Sad part is, we are all screwed.
before you make a statement like that, you must understand the Muslim Brotherhood and its popularity in Egypt compounded by the three decades of unpopular rule by Mubarak. Mubarak was increasingly losing favor with a poor economy, emergency laws, and his decades long habit of security sweeps, crack downs, and military tribunals of Islamists and other Egyptians.

With that understanding, you will see that no matter what, Mubarak would have gone. Our president didn't "push" Mubarak out of power. He urged him to listen to the people, make ammends, and transition out of power. Egypt's military "pushed" rather, removed Mubarak from power. US couldn't have done anything about it short of an invasion.

Next you must understand the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests, and why Morsi fell from grace and was removed this past July.

UN would have not been effective anyways despite monitoring elections.

edit,

if you want to know why the US and our government was so "wishy washy" towards Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood because they were unsure of the organization. They were also caught be surprise by the Arab Spring and did not know, nor could predict how things would unfold. The US did not know if they would be dealing the Muslim Brotherhood that espoused the teachings of Hassan al Banna who wanted a fully Islamist state based on Sharia law, Sayyd Qutb who was an extremist, or an organization that rejected violence as declared by al Hudaybi in the 1950s and more mainstream moderate and pragmatic members as evidenced in 2005 and the Arab Spring.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-26-2013 at 08:15 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 08:22 PM   #69
Goughie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Over the pond...
Posts: 564
My Ride: 330d Sport Touring
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Because the media in this country is garbage and tends to not educate Americans, but rather focus on insignificant issues like the Zimmerman case or the latest and greatest celebrities. I watched BBC news a few times, and was surprised at how much one can find out about the world in just a half hour. If you could turn the Middle East into a dramatic reality TV show, you'd have more buy in from Americans.
For all it's faults and claims of a left-leaning bias, the BBC is one of the UK's best institutions. It's impartiality of reporting is strictly enforced by law, with this requirement being controlled by the licence fee that all UK tax payers contribute to for it's funding. That said, I also watch Al Jazeera too, if only for an Arabic-centric viewpoint to events in the region (and the world, too).

Re the use of chemical weapons - Syria is not a signatory to the UN charter on chemical weapons use, so technically they can use them as they see fit. It may be repugnant to us, but hey, the US killed loads with nukes, agent orange, napalm, cluster munitions, etc. (That is NOT to absolve other nations of doing similar nasty crap, with the exception of the nukes of course).

The UK Government (and our foreign secretary in particular) are practically salivating about chemical weapon usage (pun unintended) but I'm not sure we'll see any UK declarations about what we're going to do until our Parliament reconvenes after the summer recess next Monday. I don't like the idea of getting involved at all, in what is after all a civil war (albeit with thousands of foreign jihadis now in the country).
__________________
http://i38.tinypic.com/oif03r.png
Sig is a BlownE30M3 production!

"The protection of views purely on religious grounds cannot be justified. It is not only an irrational idea, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary" - Lord Justice Laws, UK 29/04/2010
Goughie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 08:35 PM   #70
Goughie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Over the pond...
Posts: 564
My Ride: 330d Sport Touring
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
This is Syrian vs. Syrian and it is none of our business. As bad as chemical weapons are....they were not instigated by a third party. I don't understand the rush to war .......it sounds like Iraq 2. I wonder if Israel is the one behind America's push for war and retaliation with Syria. This way we would be fighting their war for them. But......if we attack Syria without provocation,......they have not attacked us.......it would inflame the ME further and give a legitimate reason for terrorists to attack the U.S. I wonder if terrorists will consider assaulting American interests in Afghanistan, Israel or even Turkey. Or, one of our many embassies overseas.

We have no business interfering. We have been at war since the Japanese attacked us on December 7, 1941. I wonder what peace feels like.
You obviously heard all about the multiplicity of US embassies being closed down a few weeks back due to an unspecified threat from AQAP? Lots of western nations (including the UK) followed suit (at least in Yemen). UK press were reporting that US intelligence had overheard Al-Zarahiwri and another major AQ player talking about a plot (and the Yemeni government claimed to have foiled a huge plot based around taking ports and oil installations in the country just a few days later).

The problem the US has, whether it likes it or not, is that it has come to be seen by many as something of a global police force, given it's power and reach. That this reach may be at a disconnect to what the US population want is a problem for said population and one that seems to be insurmountable at the ballot box.

Also, I thought the US was not at war during Carter's administration (Iran hostage situation aside)
__________________
http://i38.tinypic.com/oif03r.png
Sig is a BlownE30M3 production!

"The protection of views purely on religious grounds cannot be justified. It is not only an irrational idea, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary" - Lord Justice Laws, UK 29/04/2010
Goughie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 08:37 PM   #71
Goughie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Over the pond...
Posts: 564
My Ride: 330d Sport Touring
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
before you make a statement like that, you must understand the Muslim Brotherhood and its popularity in Egypt compounded by the three decades of unpopular rule by Mubarak. Mubarak was increasingly losing favor with a poor economy, emergency laws, and his decades long habit of security sweeps, crack downs, and military tribunals of Islamists and other Egyptians.

With that understanding, you will see that no matter what, Mubarak would have gone. Our president didn't "push" Mubarak out of power. He urged him to listen to the people, make ammends, and transition out of power. Egypt's military "pushed" rather, removed Mubarak from power. US couldn't have done anything about it short of an invasion.

Next you must understand the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests, and why Morsi fell from grace and was removed this past July.

UN would have not been effective anyways despite monitoring elections.

edit,

if you want to know why the US and our government was so "wishy washy" towards Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood because they were unsure of the organization. They were also caught be surprise by the Arab Spring and did not know, nor could predict how things would unfold. The US did not know if they would be dealing the Muslim Brotherhood that espoused the teachings of Hassan al Banna who wanted a fully Islamist state based on Sharia law, Sayyd Qutb who was an extremist, or an organization that rejected violence as declared by al Hudaybi in the 1950s and more mainstream moderate and pragmatic members as evidenced in 2005 and the Arab Spring.

A well informed post imvho.
__________________
http://i38.tinypic.com/oif03r.png
Sig is a BlownE30M3 production!

"The protection of views purely on religious grounds cannot be justified. It is not only an irrational idea, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary" - Lord Justice Laws, UK 29/04/2010
Goughie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 08:53 PM   #72
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goughie View Post
A well informed post imvho.
I've read a lot on the subject. Plus Egypt is of personal interest to me having lived there in the 90s.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-26-2013 at 08:53 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 09:08 PM   #73
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goughie View Post
You obviously heard all about the multiplicity of US embassies being closed down a few weeks back due to an unspecified threat from AQAP? Lots of western nations (including the UK) followed suit (at least in Yemen). UK press were reporting that US intelligence had overheard Al-Zarahiwri and another major AQ player talking about a plot (and the Yemeni government claimed to have foiled a huge plot based around taking ports and oil installations in the country just a few days later).


yeah that was all over the news. i thought it was BS. we should not have shut them down. we should have sent in more security and faced the threat.



The problem the US has, whether it likes it or not, is that it has come to be seen by many as something of a global police force, given it's power and reach. That this reach may be at a disconnect to what the US population want is a problem for said population and one that seems to be insurmountable at the ballot box.

unfortunately this is correct. i am weary of being the world police and then watching our soldiers and sailors get crapped on and returning dead and wounded. The people that we help don't appreciate our efforts.


Also, I thought the US was not at war during Carter's administration (Iran hostage situation aside) :hmm:
basically this is true but we still had the cold war with russia in eastern europe and we had nukes at the ready and bombers loaded with nukes flying throught the skies. and technically we have a cease fire with north korea not a peace treaty. we were not actively fighting any one but were still spending billions on defense.
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 09:13 PM   #74
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Mubarak was increasingly losing favor with a poor economy, emergency laws, and his decades long habit of security sweeps, crack downs, and military tribunals of Islamists and other Egyptians.
There were declarative statements out of our State Department that Mubarak had to go. He could have gone as the result of a U.N. backed election. It didn't have to be a military ouster And YES we could have greatly influenced their military, with personal ties, over $1B in aid and the kicker, spare parts. Without us, their Air Force cannot fly for long.

Quote:
With that understanding, you will see that no matter what, Mubarak would have gone. Our president didn't "push" Mubarak out of power. He urged him to listen to the people, make ammends, and transition out of power. Egypt's military "pushed" rather, removed Mubarak from power. US couldn't have done anything about it short of an invasion.
See above and the leverage of parts and aid.
Quote:
Next you must understand the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests, and why Morsi fell from grace and was removed this past July.

UN would have not been effective anyways despite monitoring elections.
UN could have monitored elections if the military was on board. Funny, Morsi was so unpopular but just got the constitution changed by a 2/3rds majority.
Quote:

if you want to know why the US and our government was so "wishy washy" towards Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood because they were unsure of the organization. They were also caught be surprise by the Arab Spring and did not know, nor could predict how things would unfold. The US did not know if they would be dealing the Muslim Brotherhood that espoused the teachings of Hassan al Banna who wanted a fully Islamist state based on Sharia law, Sayyd Qutb who was an extremist, or an organization that rejected violence as declared by al Hudaybi in the 1950s and more mainstream moderate and pragmatic members as evidenced in 2005 and the Arab Spring.
Funny, the first thing I thought of with the uprising was the MB taking over. I remember my brother getting all gushy about how a Obama was inspiring democracy in the Middle East and me telling him it was just an opening for the MB and other Islamist extremists.

I guess Hillary was right, the 3 a.m. Call came and it went to voicemail.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 09:16 PM   #75
Raymond42262
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 453
My Ride: Is German
It's funny that the U.S. was condemned for killing the president of South Vietnam and the president of Chile when they failed to cooperate with the U.S policies. The U.S. passed legislation saying we could not assassinate foreign leaders but somehow it was not a problem to kill Qaddafi with a drone strike in Libya, Saddam's sons, push Mubarrak out of office, aid rebels in Tunisia, kill Al Qeda in Yemen and potentially kill Assad in Syria.

What allows the U.S. to kill unpopular leaders today, considering it has been prohibited for the last thirty years ?
__________________
"The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, someone to love, and something to hope for."....Joseph Addison
--------------------
Raymond42262 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 09:29 PM   #76
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd






Lest we forget the "support" Mubarak got from our government

Read n rough the diplomatic speak and it was clear as day if he didn't go, we would make him go.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 09:33 PM   #77
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond42262 View Post
It's funny that the U.S. was condemned for killing the president of South Vietnam and the president of Chile when they failed to cooperate with the U.S policies. The U.S. passed legislation saying we could not assassinate foreign leaders but somehow it was not a problem to kill Qaddafi with a drone strike in Libya, Saddam's sons, push Mubarrak out of office, aid rebels in Tunisia, kill Al Qeda in Yemen and potentially kill Assad in Syria.

What allows the U.S. to kill unpopular leaders today, considering it has been prohibited for the last thirty years ?
Assassination has been prohibited by Executive Order. There is no law in effect that prohibits collateral death of a leader, nor the death of one during military action.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/...icy/index.html
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 09:35 PM   #78
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
There were declarative statements out of our State Department that Mubarak had to go. He could have gone as the result of a U.N. backed election. It didn't have to be a military ouster And YES we could have greatly influenced their military, with personal ties, over $1B in aid and the kicker, spare parts. Without us, their Air Force cannot fly for long.
Yes, there were declarative statements after the fact our administration decided he had to go based on what they saw occurring in Egypt. And after a tipping point was reached That wasn't our administration's initial response. First Obama tried to appease Mubarak by calling him and telling him to listen to the concerns of the people. This includes a transition. However, Mubarak being Mubarak, refused and pretty much set the stage for his son Gamal to ascend to the presidency. That was a tipping point for Egypt and pissed off Egyptians.

don't take my word for it though. Read Sanger's book Confront & Conceal and put together a timeline.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
UN could have monitored elections if the military was on board. Funny, Morsi was so unpopular but just got the constitution changed by a 2/3rds majority..
Morsi was a backup candidate. The primary one was Khariat el Shater (sp). He, along with his competition was deemed unsuitable by Egypt's military. So Morsi took his place.

To note, Moris was able to do what he did because a) the Freedom and Justice Party were able to gain 47% of seats in Egypt's parliament after the Arab Spring. Egyptians were riding the tide of nationalism and happy to see Mubarak go. Therefore Morsi had the political capital to do what he wanted.

To note, if you know the Brotherhood's nature, you'll understand that once assuming power they began to consolidate power. Therefore since they got the majority vote in Parliament, they believed they had a mandate to rule because they thought they had the "will of the people". However, in reality, they did not and was a precursor to their downfall as evidenced in July.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317
Funny, the first thing I thought of with the uprising was the MB taking over. I remember my brother getting all gushy about how a Obama was inspiring democracy in the Middle East and me telling him it was just an opening for the MB and other Islamist extremists.

I guess Hillary was right, the 3 a.m. Call came and it went to voicemail.

Correction. The Muslim Brotherhood, specifically its senior leaders were opposed to getting involved -at first. This is because they were afraid of reprisals from Mubarak which had been done in the past where the military cracked down on them from becoming too political. It wasn't until the youth of the generation got involved and swayed the opinion of their leadership that they finally gave in and the organization as a whole got involved, united with other groups, and rallied against Mubarak.

Reference RAND Corporation The Muslim Brotherhood, It's Youth, and Implications for US Engagement.

You need to distinguish between Islamist and Extremist. The two are not necessarily one in the same and can be mutually exclusive. That's a common misunderstanding amongst Americans and the West. This is not to say, however, that extremists where not involved in the Arab Spring. Additionally, Egypt's al Nour Party are Salafist who have a different interpretation of Islam that is considered by some more conservative, even extreme. But not necessarily violent.


Here is a more correct definition:

Islamists: a group or individual advocating Islam as a political as well as religious system.

Militant Islamist: a group or individual advocating Islamist ideological goals, principally through violent means.

(source: Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat - Naval Institute Press)

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-26-2013 at 09:58 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 10:21 PM   #79
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 523
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti317 View Post
There were declarative statements out of our State Department that Mubarak had to go. He could have gone as the result of a U.N. backed election. It didn't have to be a military ouster And YES we could have greatly influenced their military, with personal ties, over $1B in aid and the kicker, spare parts. Without us, their Air Force cannot fly for long.


See above and the leverage of parts and aid.


UN could have monitored elections if the military was on board. Funny, Morsi was so unpopular but just got the constitution changed by a 2/3rds majority.

Funny, the first thing I thought of with the uprising was the MB taking over. I remember my brother getting all gushy about how a Obama was inspiring democracy in the Middle East and me telling him it was just an opening for the MB and other Islamist extremists.

I guess Hillary was right, the 3 a.m. Call came and it went to voicemail.
Let's not exaggerate the influence that Washington has in Egypt. Our $1 Billion aid package is nothing compared to the packages promised by UAE, Saudi, and Kuwait.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 10:25 PM   #80
ti317
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: S. Florida
Posts: 617
My Ride: 02 330ci coupe 5 spd
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Yes, there were declarative statements after the fact our administration decided he had to go based on what they saw occurring in Egypt. And after a tipping point was reached.......

Reference RAND Corporation The Muslim Brotherhood, It's Youth, and Implications for US Engagement.

You need to distinguish between Islamist and Extremist. The two are not necessarily one in the same and can be mutually exclusive. That's a common misunderstanding amongst Americans and the West. This is not to say, however, that extremists where not involved in the Arab Spring. Additionally, Egypt's al Nour Party are Salafist who have a different interpretation of Islam that is considered by some more conservative, even extreme. But not necessarily violent.


Here is a more correct definition:

Islamists: a group or individual advocating Islam as a political as well as religious system.

Militant Islamist: a group or individual advocating Islamist ideological goals, principally through violent means.

(source: Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat - Naval Institute Press)
Too long to quote your post but it seems the "tipping point" was reached awfully quickly.


Also, if you read what I wrote, I used the term Islamist extremists, like Christian extremists. I did not confuse the terms nor substitute one for the other. In your haste to impress with your insight I to the region, maybe you could have spent a little time actually reading my post.
__________________
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
ti317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use