Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on May 16, 2011, 09:09:44 AM
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267189/sectarian-violence-mark-krikorian
"In the Islamic world, democracy equals dead Christians."
http://bigpeace.com/dfriedman/2011/05/08/egyptians-enjoy-new-freedom-to-kill-christians/
When Muslims get some freedom of action, how do they use their freedom? To kill Christians living among them.
-
I'm all in favor of the recent events in the middle east.
Once all the nations over there have representative governments it will make it easier to formulate foreign policy.
If a country with a representative government chooses to become our enemy it makes it easier to choose overwhelming force in a conflict.
If a country is ruled by a dictator or oligarchy, esp a government we have helped prop up, it becomes more complicated in choosing a response, take Pakistan for example.
Lets let them fly their freak flag freely.
Lets let them reap what they choose to sow.
Let the Christians come here and be free, it is what we do.
-
1. Egypt still has no democracy. It has military rule.
2. In a nation of 33 million, an outburst of violence which leaves 12 dead (on both sides) is a blip, not a trend marker.
3. The church was attacked on accusations that a person was being held there against their will - hardly a mark of religious tolerance.
-
1. Egypt still has no democracy. It has military rule.
2. In a nation of 33 million, an outburst of violence which leaves 12 dead (on both sides) is a blip, not a trend marker.
3. The church was attacked on accusations that a person was being held there against their will - hardly a mark of religious tolerance.
The "extremists' always have a "legitimate" excuse for their outrage.
-
This seems to be - if true - a perfectly legitimate excuse for outrage.
-
Making excuses for burning churches and committing murder?
Background articles about the chaos:
http://www.aina.org/news/20110512194147.htm
http://www.aina.org/news/20110515041214.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/coptic-christians-slaughtered-in-egypt-as-the-world-looks-away/story-e6frg6zo-1226056354274
-
1. Egypt still has no democracy. It has military rule.
2. In a nation of 33 million, an outburst of violence which leaves 12 dead (on both sides) is a blip, not a trend marker.
3. The church was attacked on accusations that a person was being held there against their will - hardly a mark of religious tolerance.
Ummm... how many muslims were dead in the muslim attack on the Christian church? I guess I missed the part where muslims were dying as a result of muslim against Christian violence.
And, I guess we just need an imam to claim that after a Christian woman is actually a muslim! Free the muslim woman (who has appeared on TV to say it's not true) Free the muslim woman!
-
2. In a nation of 33 million, an outburst of violence which leaves 12 dead (on both sides) is a blip, not a trend marker.
Also, I like the way you phrased that. Very nice.
"An outbreak of violence" "leaves 12 dead (on both sides)"
Really makes it sould like mutual combat. And "an outbreak of violence" rather than a directed attack against Christians.
Phrasing it that Muslims attacked and murdered 12 Christians and injured almost 300 others is just too judgemental, huh?
-
Ummm... how many muslims were dead in the muslim attack on the Christian church? I guess I missed the part where muslims were dying as a result of muslim against Christian violence.
The identity of those dead is not known, AFAIK.
The leader of the Copts claimed all of these dead were Christians. Of course he would claim that.
-
Note that even the heinous murder of 12 people - assuming this is what occured - is a blip in a 33-million-man country.
It would be like saying that a Klan lynching, were one to occur in the United States today, is evidence that "Democracy Movement" translates as "Dead Africans" in American English"). That would be rubbish. So is the idea that this attack somehow means that Egyptians do not deserve the God-given rights of all men because some Egyptians committed a murder.
-
Note that even the heinous murder of 12 people - assuming this is what occured - is a blip in a 33-million-man country.
It would be like saying that a Klan lynching, were one to occur in the United States today, is evidence that "Democracy Movement" translates as "Dead Africans" in American English"). That would be rubbish. So is the idea that this attack somehow means that Egyptians do not deserve the God-given rights of all men because some Egyptians committed a murder.
Actually, my argument is not that they should not have self-rule.
My argument is that Islam is the enemy of Western Civilization (as evidenced here by the persecution of the Coptic Christians.) Enemies have the right of self-determination as well.
-
And it's not one incident in a country of 33 million. It's a pattern now that they are "free" of the Mubarak dictatorship:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/08/egypt.clashes/index.html?eref=edition
-
Christians are being killed by Muslims in significant numbers in many places, not just Egypt.
The fact that Egypt has a military government is symptomatic.
Who is denying the Egyptians their "God-given rights" other than the Egyptians themselves?
-
And it's not one incident in a country of 33 million. It's a pattern now that they are "free" of the Mubarak dictatorship:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/08/egypt.clashes/index.html?eref=edition
This is a report of the same incident.
-
I'm also not clear how this is different from Mubarak's evil reign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts#Sectarian_attacks_since_1970
-
This is a report of the same incident.
And it includes mention of the recently previous muslim attacks on the Copts.
-
I'm also not clear how this is different from Mubarak's evil reign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts#Sectarian_attacks_since_1970
According to your article, 30+ have died this year (and we're not even halfway through.)
Also according to your article, the worst period was 1992-1998 where 127 Copts were killed. That's an average of ~22 per year.
This year is on pace to be more than three times that average of the "worst" period.
-
All this reminds me of the 2A propaganda list, showing the death toll of the unarmed around the world when rounded up by their respective governments.
Just goes to show that self defense is equally necessary in democracy, anarchy, religious fundamentalism and despotism.
Here's to wishing that someone would airlift 10,000 crates of surplus mosins to suburban Cairo and drop them randomly through the neighborhoods. Those that want peace would have the power to preserve it around themselves, and those that want to impose control on others would find a conflict to die in and we'd be rid of them. If you want to impose control, you're a Statist and I'm happy with you dying in your Civil War of choice, whether Muslim or Coptic Christian.
-
The fall of Saddam was devestating for Christians in Iraq, and the pattern is repeated in Egypt.
-
According to your article, 30+ have died this year (and we're not even halfway through.)
Also according to your article, the worst period was 1992-1998 where 127 Copts were killed. That's an average of ~22 per year.
This year is on pace to be more than three times that average of the "worst" period.
In what way is this any kind of reflection on the non-existent Egyptian democracy? There is no democracy yet in Egypt. No elections were conducted.
-
In what way is this any kind of reflection on the non-existent Egyptian democracy? There is no democracy yet in Egypt. No elections were conducted.
Actually, my argument is not that they should not have self-rule.
My argument is that Islam is the enemy of Western Civilization (as evidenced here by the persecution of the Coptic Christians.) Enemies have the right of self-determination as well.
-
This seems to be - if true - a perfectly legitimate excuse for outrage.
Micro, the way I read your posts here, I get the idea that you are inclined to believe the Muslims when they say someone was held against their will, but do not believe the Coptic Christians when they say the 12 people killed were all Christians. Is that true?
I'm not sure I believe either one, but when it seems the Muslims are the ones guilty of mob violence, I would tend not to believe their excuses.
-
I'm not inclined to believe anyone. I've explicitly said that holding someone against their will would be awful if true.
But I think it's not possible for the Christians or the Muslims to know the identities of all those killed in a mob violence scenario. I doubt the people who actually killed know that.
-
I'm not inclined to believe anyone. I've explicitly said that holding someone against their will would be awful if true.
But I think it's not possible for the Christians or the Muslims to know the identities of all those killed in a mob violence scenario. I doubt the people who actually killed know that.
So, the muslims showed up to attack Copts and their church and since, at the moment of the killings, they couldn't be sure they were killing Copts, it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt? After all, they may have thought they were killing Manchester United fans!
Seriously, this wasn't a peace protest. This wasn't mutual combat. This was an attack on a church. Your attempts at moral equivocation are at best bewildering.
-
So, the muslims showed up to attack Copts and their church and since, at the moment of the killings, they couldn't be sure they were killing Copts, it's best to give them the benefit of the doubt? After all, they may have thought they were killing Manchester United fans!
Strawman.
Seriously, this wasn't a peace protest. This wasn't mutual combat. This was an attack on a church. Your attempts at moral equivocation are at best bewildering.
Strawman.
-
Strawman.
No, hyperbole.
Strawman.
How? You are attempting moral equivolence: the Coptic leader OF COURSE would want to say that all those dead were Coptics, but some of them could have been muslims!
I'm not inclined to believe anyone. I've explicitly said that holding someone against their will would be awful if true.
But I think it's not possible for the Christians or the Muslims to know the identities of all those killed in a mob violence scenario. I doubt the people who actually killed know that.
The problem is it is QUITE possible to know the identies of all those killed after the mob violence has abated because you can look at their faces.
And unless you believe the coptics to be killing off their own just to frame the muslims... I'm, again, bewildered by your position.
-
The problem is it is QUITE possible to know the identies of all those killed after the mob violence has abated because you can look at their faces.
In most countries people killed in violence are immediately evacuated by police and held in police morgues. Generally I expect this also happens in Egypt. I'm expecting - perhaps I am wrong - that it would be difficult to know for sure who they are until police release names.
I expect - this being Egypt, not France - that after mob violence started, both sides acted like, well, mobs. This is backed up by the fact that soldiers were also attacked for 'not doing enough to protect' the church.
Most importantly, even if we grant that everything occured as you claim it did, we are still talking about a nation of 33 million.
Let us assume that the formal statistics are correct and 9% of Egyptians are Copts - that's about 3,000,000 people.
Let us project the trend and assume 60 Copts will be killed this year as you predict. This constitutes a rate of of 2.0 people killed for religious reasons per 100,000. This is important - the rates per 100,000 are how you measure the prominence of violence in a society.
This does not rise to the level of 'oh we gave these people some freedom and they all launched themselves at the Christians to start killing them!'.
The Egyptians neither have a Democracy, nor are they launching themselves at the Christians to kill them en masse.
Indeed, I am at a loss to understand in what way the lack of Mubarak contributes to this at all.
-
In what way is this any kind of reflection on the non-existent Egyptian democracy? There is no democracy yet in Egypt. No elections were conducted.
Ah, a process argument from the libertarian.
I would argue that there is more democracy in Egypt(1) than when Mubarak was dictator, but, for the sake of argument, I'll concede the point.
OTOH, is there not more freedom of action (AKA, "liberty") on the part of individual Egyptians than when Mubarak ruled? So, if we want to be process-oriented pecksniffs, we could more accurately title this phenomenon, "Liberty Movement" Translates as "Dead Christians" in Arabic.
De Selby is correct when he writes that if Muslim democracy is to triumph, so will anti-Israel policy triumph as those governments' policy. Christians will get the policy, but since a sizable number still live in Muslim countries, the local anti-semites and anti-Christians will be able to burn, murder, and rape them at their leisure rather than having to attack Israel.
Micro, the way I read your posts here, I get the idea that you are inclined to believe the Muslims when they say someone was held against their will, but do not believe the Coptic Christians when they say the 12 people killed were all Christians. Is that true?
I'm not sure I believe either one, but when it seems the Muslims are the ones guilty of mob violence, I would tend not to believe their excuses.
MB has invested in the "Arab Spring" phenomenon for various reasons. Contrary evidence is not welcome.
Dennis Prager wrote a column discussing why little attention is paid to persecution of Christians in the Muslim world:
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/04/19/why_dont_christians_help__christians/page/full/
In the Muslim world, Christians are being murdered, churches are being torched, entire ancient Christian communities -- the Iraqi and Palestinian, for example -- are disappearing. And, again, 2 billion Christians react with silence. There are some Christian groups active on behalf of persecuted Christians around the world. They do important work, and are often the primary source of information on persecuted Christians. But they would be the first to acknowledge that the Christian world is overwhelmingly silent when it comes to the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world.
(1) What is a mob, but the will of people without filter or mediation? Are there not more mobs, demonstrations, etc. than before Mubarak left?
-
What are those reasons that I have invested in the Arab Spring, Oh InterContinentally Telepathic One?
-
What are those reasons that I have invested in the Arab Spring, Oh InterContinentally Telepathic One?
Telepathy? No, telephony. Specifically, telecommunications, to include digital commo like the 'net. I find your posts here & elsewhere interesting and read them. Sometimes I even recall what you wrote.
Writing you are invested in these movements is about as controversial as writing that I am invested in federalism.
-
Sure. Carry on and explain what reasons you ascribe to this investment of mine, please?
I.E., I get that you think that due to reading my posts. What do you think my thought process to be, I still wonder.
-
Note that even the heinous murder of 12 people - assuming this is what occured - is a blip in a 33-million-man country.
It would be like saying that a Klan lynching, were one to occur in the United States today, is evidence that "Democracy Movement" translates as "Dead Africans" in American English"). That would be rubbish. So is the idea that this attack somehow means that Egyptians do not deserve the God-given rights of all men because some Egyptians committed a murder.
If the Klan were to lynch a dozen black people today - in a nation of over 300 million, not 33 million - it would be no blip; it would be a MAJOR headline in newspapers all over the world, with stories and editorials running for weeks. Likewise if a group of Zionist rabbis torched a mosque with a dozen Moslems inside. (Expecially if a Koran was burned in the process.)
But what happened in Egypt is a meaningless blip.
Right . . .
-
So now the Egyptian Copts are "western civilization"? News flash - they have much more to do with their Muslim neighbours culturally than with any commonly peddled version of "western civiliation" (assuming for this discussion that term is useful).
f the Klan were to lynch a dozen black people today - in a nation of over 300 million, not 33 million - it would be no blip; it would be a MAJOR headline in newspapers all over the world, with stories and editorials running for weeks. Likewise if a group of Zionist rabbis torched a mosque with a dozen Moslems inside. (Expecially if a Koran was burned in the process.)
Yeah, groups of Zionists do routinely beat, maim, and sometimes kill Palestinians - you never see it on the news though. And it would be silly to see it as if it represented all of Israel or, even more ridiculous, to treat it as if it represented Judaism. Yet that's what you're trying to do here with the Egyptian incident.
Roo_ster
De Selby is correct when he writes that if Muslim democracy is to triumph, so will anti-Israel policy triumph as those governments' policy. Christians will get the policy, but since a sizable number still live in Muslim countries, the local anti-semites and anti-Christians will be able to burn, murder, and rape them at their leisure rather than having to attack Israel.
What makes you think the Christians there don't join the Muslims in opposing Israel?
Micro is right. There is no Egyptian anti-Christian movement. Just like there is no Palestinian anti-Christian movement. The overwhelming majority of violence in the middle east has been muslim vs muslim, far and away. Mubarak's muslim secret police killed far more muslims than the mobs have of Christians.
The Arab revolutions are clearly not religious affairs. Attempts to read religion into them only prove what critics said about all the "islamic" theories of Middle Eastern politics in the past - that it was veiled Islamophobia and not remotely connected to the facts.
-
What are those reasons that I have invested in the Arab Spring, Oh InterContinentally Telepathic One?
He's referring to your uncritical and obvious support for individual rights, including the rights to political liberty and personal property. For equally obvious reasons that lead you to support efforts at democracy in Arab countries in several threads.
-
If the Klan were to lynch a dozen black people today - in a nation of over 300 million, not 33 million - it would be no blip; it would be a MAJOR headline in newspapers all over the world, with stories and editorials running for weeks. Likewise if a group of Zionist rabbis torched a mosque with a dozen Moslems inside. (Expecially if a Koran was burned in the process.)
Indeed, but this is because the mainstream media are stupid, insane, and evil.
-
If all the nations of the middle east were representative democracies then it would be easier to hold them accountable for their actions and positions.
We may not like the way it looks when all is said and done, but that is the calculated risk you take when you unleash freedoms and liberty.
If the governments of the region actually legitimately reflect the values and philosophy of the voting public then there will be less need for three dimensional chess in our foreign policy.
-
There is no Egyptian anti-Christian movement. Just like there is no Palestinian anti-Christian movement. The overwhelming majority of violence in the middle east has been muslim vs muslim, far and away. Mubarak's muslim secret police killed far more muslims than the mobs have of Christians.
No, it's not a movement...more like a twitch...a cultural tic...not to worry...it's only been a little spasm that's lasted a few centuries...
-
. . . the mainstream media are stupid, insane, and evil.
So we CAN agree on something after all . . .
-
If the governments of the region actually legitimately reflect the values and philosophy of the voting public then there will be less need for three dimensional chess in our foreign policy.
Indeed.
Help them have Democracy, then let them enjoy the results of that Democracy when they support international suicide bombers and rabid proselytizing of the Caliphate to the West, and violence against "Dhimmis" or "Infidels."
-
Indeed.
Help them have Democracy, then let them enjoy the results of that Democracy when they support international suicide bombers and rabid proselytizing of the Caliphate to the West, and violence against "Dhimmis" or "Infidels."
And then suffer the consequences, the use of overwhelming force without concern for so called innocent civilians. You vote in an insane government that supports violence against us you'll get it right back at ya tenfold.
I'd rather have it out on the table and deal with it nation to nation, rather than this convoluted chaotic mess we have now. Everyone gets elections and puts where they stand right out there. Choose you this day, friend or foe?
-
Hey Ron, you basically quoted bin ladens justification for september 11 - he said the us army had attacked Muslims in Lebanon and aided attacks in Palestine, so because the Americans voted for that leadership, they were fair game.
Would you agree that September 11 was a legitimate military operation? Because if you think it was mass murder like me, you're going to have to rethink your ideas about democracy and war.
-
Indeed.
Help them have Democracy, then let them enjoy the results of that Democracy when they support international suicide bombers and rabid proselytizing of the Caliphate to the West, and violence against "Dhimmis" or "Infidels."
The only government backers of the "caliphate" are the us's favourites in the region, the saudis. The only religious extremists that ever poll well are those with Saudi cash.
People there are voting for national reasons like anyone else - the rush to find Islamic roots is patently absurd in light of the recent changes. Fifty years of Islamic movements have achieved no support; broad secular coalitions ripped dictatorships apart in a matter of months.
The Arab Israeli conflict was never about religion on the Arab side.
There's a further irony here - how do you all figure that native non-Muslim religions persisted over the centuries in these places if Islam commands killing them??
Contrast that to any chrisitian "western" place, where no trace of native religion or culture remains. I think we're projecting historical christian practice here, not seriously analyzing Muslim custom.
-
The only government backers of the "caliphate" are the us's favourites in the region, the saudis. The only religious extremists that ever poll well are those with Saudi cash.
People there are voting for national reasons like anyone else - the rush to find Islamic roots is patently absurd in light of the recent changes. Fifty years of Islamic movements have achieved no support; broad secular coalitions ripped dictatorships apart in a matter of months.
The Arab Israeli conflict was never about religion on the Arab side.
There's a further irony here - how do you all figure that native non-Muslim religions persisted over the centuries in these places if Islam commands killing them??
Contrast that to any chrisitian "western" place, where no trace of native religion or culture remains. I think we're projecting historical christian practice here, not seriously analyzing Muslim custom.
Hamas MP and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal, May 11, 2011: “The (Jews) are brought in droves to Palestine so that the Palestinians – and the Islamic nation behind them – will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang… All the predators, all the birds of prey, all the dangerous reptiles and insects, and all the lethal bacteria are far less dangerous than the Jews… In Just a few years, all the Zionists and the settlers will realize that their arrival in Palestine was for the purpose of the great massacre, by means of which Allah wants to relieve humanity of their evil… When Palestine is liberated and its people return to it, and the entire region, with the grace of Allah, will have turned into the United States of Islam, the land of Palestine will become the capital of the Islamic Caliphate, and all these countries will turn into states within the Caliphate…”
-
Are you agreeing or disagreeing? Hamas is a joint Israeli-Saudi initiative - those are it's main sources of funds and support. That was my point. The only people dreaming of caliphates are a) unpopular and b) funded by us allies.
-
Hey Ron, you basically quoted bin ladens justification for september 11 - he said the us army had attacked Muslims in Lebanon and aided attacks in Palestine, so because the Americans voted for that leadership, they were fair game.
Would you agree that September 11 was a legitimate military operation? Because if you think it was mass murder like me, you're going to have to rethink your ideas about democracy and war.
As a general rule we no longer directly target civilians in military operations. I see no reason to change that philosophy.
If you recall the hue and cry about the innocent Iraqis suffering as we demolished their infrastructure, this is what I'm speaking toward. The Iraqis suffered due to the actions of their unelected dictator.
If we need to go into a country like that again, it would be far more justifiable if the government we were making war against was a government that reflected the popular consensus of its people.
Sept 11 was mass murder and an act of war. Maybe in the Jihadis brain there is some moral equivalence between their actions and ours, but there is no equivalence as far as I'm concerned. The plight of the Palestinians is a stalking horse for those who would control the region (not democratically). BinLaden has offered up multiple excuses for his attempts to drive us and our influence out of the region. This is the type of blowback you get from propping up bad guys.
-
Back on topic...
Here is an article by someone who is on the ground in Egypt
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/may/17/egypt-why-are-churches-burning/