• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya

I have to wonder if you understand the difference between rebels and protestors.

I understand the difference. Maybe I did not express myself correctly. The hypocrisy of the US and its allies come from the fact that they are supporting a pro-democracy movement in Libya, while ignoring the pro-democracy movements in Bahrain and Yemen.
 
Because unlike Nixon, Polk did not inherit the Vietnam war from his predessor.

no, he STARTED it
Who are you claiming started the Vietnam War, Polk or Nixon?

obama campaigned on afghanistan as the "right war"

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Why President Obama Should End the Afghanistan War

in other words---if you ESCALATE it you OWN it
We'll have to agree to disagree because I don't see Obama's attempt to win a war which has dragged on for 7 years before he took the reigns as "his war." Bush started this war; Bush fought this war for 7 years; this is Bush's war.

how do you propose Obama wins it, if not by escalating it?

he can't, afghanistan is unwinnable
I don't believe that. The goal at this point is to make the democratically elected government self sufficient and capable of fighting off the Taliban. I believe that could be attainable.

Al-Qaeda was always an outlying reason for invading Afghanistan.

obama, december, 09: "that's not what the american people signed off for when they went into afghanistan in 2001, they signed up to go after al qaeda"
That's true, that not what the American people signed up for. Al-Qaeda fled shortly after the war began, yet we remained for an additional 7 years under Bush and now 2 more under Obama. That's the war Obama inherited and that's the war he's trying to end.

Thanks for the link, I was unaware Obama set a timeline. Not too bright.

where ya been?
I don't hear every word Obama says.
 
Last edited:
I understand the difference. Maybe I did not express myself correctly. The hypocrisy of the US and its allies come from the fact that they are supporting a pro-democracy movement in Libya, while ignoring the pro-democracy movements in Bahrain and Yemen.

Why doesn't the Arab League step in to help? Are they completely useless?

Or are they anti Democracy?
 
I think you're being asked to look at the bigger picture, and it is a point you should genuinely consider.

The larger picture doesn't change the real differences. Core values are acore values, and not smething subject to being bent to fit a whim.

It makes a difference how and when and why.
 
no, it really isn't. It makes a difference on hwo and when and why.

To who? And when you have decided why some things are worthy and not worthy of your deeper thought does it change the effort at all? Will it change the natural course of what is to come? You may as well find a way to see through the fog and see the MENA picture. Each one of these Arab governments are going to have it's own remedy, but they are all about the same thing.

1) Iraq - Iraqis had no hope without us. With us ignoring their uprisings as Hussein went on to slaughhter the Shia and the Kurds in the 1990s, we had an obligation to get rid of the thorn that we were stuck to (and what Osama Bin Laden used to excuse 9/11).

2) Egypt - With our military's relationships with the Egyptian military, we did not need to "intervene." That uprising was controlled and they are at the beginning of a new future.

3) Libya - Since we have no relationships with their military, our option was to bomb military targets so as to give the rebelling people their opportunity to achieve a new future.

Like I stated, every nation is going to have its own remedy, but it is all about the same thing. Ridding ourselves of these Cold War relics is good for our long term security. It is good for the people who know nothing but oppression and blame us for it. It is tactically smart and it is morally right.

We have entered an age where we can finally be what we preach. Do you even realize what our history has been for this world? Thousands of years of empirical tradition via dictators, empires, and monarchies came down to the Soviet Union and the U.S. The Cold War boiled down to the free capitalist world versus the oppressed Communist world. Because of the way Europeans manufactured this world and created these Frankentstein's Monster nations, both superpowers took the easy way out and used the dictators to maintain order and stability. When America turned out to be the last man standing in 1991, it broke from historical tradition. The free democratic world finally one. Global authority, for the first time, didn't belong to a King, Kaiser, Czar, Emporer, etc. It belonged to the people. Along the way, we globalized the world. The consequences of this victory was that all those Frankenstein's Monster nations in the MENA were still stuck with the dictators. Without the ability to politically voice their opinions and design their own destinies, they began to go rogue. They formed terrorist organizations with religion as the theme (without answers and through great desparation all men turn to God). This is why so many terrorist attacks throughout the region and abroad are from organizations that no nation claims responsibility for. But we do know where they come from and why. And this is what the poorly named "War on Terror" has always been about.

You may default to the fact that we can never vanquish terrorism. Well, that was never the goal. Where once we used dictators to oppress the tribes into good behavior we can no longer do this. This is the price of a globalized world. Where people have a choice, vote, decision, whatever, they do not easily throw their lives away. Where they have options andopportunities toprosper for their families, they do not join terrorist organizations. Outside of the dictator, only democracies have shown agility to deal with such problems. Therefore, the goal has always been to reduce this region's terrorism to a manageable level. You think it's a coincidence that all Arab governments are voicing for democracy today? You don't think that in a globalized internet induced twitter world full of information over flow that these people can't see what the rest of us have discovered as the means to prosperity and success? You think Iraq's success at the polls last year wasn't watched carefully by Al-Jazeera and so many individual citizens as their dictators bit their nails?

You may also default to the fear that in a democracy they will merely vote in the terrorists. This is a poor outlook. These dictators, religious theocracies, and terrorist monsters know that their kind can not survive where people are educated and have a choice. Why do you think they wanted Iraq to fail so badly? Why do you think the Taliban shut down schools in Afghanistan? Why do you think Al-Queda targetted schools and voters in Iraq? This doesn't mean that as Palestinians proved, some garbage will not rise. But this is temporary and minor. Even the mighty French managed to vote in an Emperor on their path to democracy. Have they failed? Perhaps we can give a region full of religious people, who have been oppressed over the last few centuries, more than a few years to prove that they can do it too. The alternative is 9/11 repeated and repeated and repeated.

What people have failed to recognize that we are at a historic crossroad once again. Failure to effectively counter the catalyzing effects of Radical Islam will prove people like Samuel Huntington correct about his Clash of Civilizations. The dictators and their religious tools of oppression were leading to decreased stability, decreased economic growth, and increased conflict. And as our own history shows, our security has always relied upon the health of foreign regions. Conversely, effectively countering this threat now will have worldwide, beneficial effects for generations to come. And if you don't think that these MENA events are world changing events, perhaps you should read up on China. Even they shut the Internet down for a spell so that their people wouldn't get any crazy ideas from these uprisings.
 
Libya has nothing to do with the WOT. Qadaffi was not a friend of Al Qaeda, as evidenced by his ridiculous claims that they are behind the rebellion. The U.S. interest in Libya is for humanitarian reasons, scoring points in the PR game and hopefully stabilizing the price of oil.

You are wrong from the start because you think the WOT is about Al-Queda. Plenty of good analysts wrote of the larger picture and what the WOT was going to mean even as Bush coined the title. This was always going to be about the region that creates all the "Al-Quedas." Al-Queda didn't come from a single country. It didn't murder in a single country. We've faced them and seen them in Somalia, Sudan, Phillipines, Iraq, Jordan, etc. And as Qadaffi proved with his prior PANAM terrorist attack, it is not as simple as an old man in a cave called Bin Laden.

If you want to be safe from religious terror on a massive organized scale, then the region is the disease. Al-Queda is merely a symptom. This is what your military has been doing all along. Do you think we are only dealing with this mess in Afghanistan? That democracy in Iraq wasn't an Al-Queda target? That Pakistan isn't harboring their tribal friendlies? That Bashir in Sudan is without association? That most of this radical mentoring hasn't come out of Egypt over the last 5 decades? Without Al-Queda, our people have died because of this region's mess that we somewhat helped facilitated during the Cold War. This is the WOT.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong from the start because you think the WOT is about Al-Queda. Plenty of good analysts wrote of the larger picture and what the WOT was going to mean even as Bush coined the title. This was always going to be about the region that creates all the "Al-Quedas." Al-Queda didn't come from a single country. It didn't murder in a single country. We've faced them and seen them in Somalia, Sudan, Phillipines, Iraq, Jordan, etc. And as Qadaffi proved with his prior PANAM terrorist attack, it is not as simple as an old man in a cave called Bin Laden.

If you want to be safe from religious terror on a massive organized scale, then the region is the disease. Al-Queda is merely a symptom. This is what your military has been doing all along. Do you think we are only dealing with this mess in Afghanistan? That democracy in Iraq wasn't an Al-Queda target? That Pakistan isn't harboring their tribal friendlies? That Bashir in Sudan is without association? That most of this radical mentoring hasn't come out of Egypt over the last 5 decades? Without Al-Queda, our people have died because of this region's mess that we somewhat helped facilitated during the Cold War. This is the WOT.

I believe you have a lot of that wrong. It is not the religion itself, as many, in fact a majority, of Muslims are not terrorist. Terrorism is born of things other than religion. however, just as nations have always used religious rethoric to inspire the masses, so do terrorist. There is nothing you can do with the military that will ever change the mindset of the terrorist. In fact, it is most likely that our actions have increased the number and not lessened them.
 
I believe you have a lot of that wrong.


Then you must also believe that the entire military has it wrong. I grow tired of this. We don't have a political axe to grind. No elections to concern ourselves with. No media to entertain. No parades on the horizon. There's just the mission that we have understood since this all began. People rising up against their own tyrants was always the hope. It's not my fault that your politicians and media have done you a disservice as they merely scramble about looking for sensationalism and voter points.

When American civilians were concerning themselves with criticizing the Korean War, the military was focusing on Korea and the Cold War. When American civilians were concerning themselves with criticizing the Cuban Missile Crisis, the military was focusing on Cuba and the Cold War. When American civilians were concerning themselves with criticizing the Vietnam War, the military was focusing on Vietnam and the Cold War. What do you think has been happening since 2001? We have been focusing on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Phillipines, Somalia, Djibouti, ....and the WOT. It's the rest of you that have allowed yourselves to miss the grand effort.



It is not the religion itself, as many, in fact a majority, of Muslims are not terrorist. Terrorism is born of things other than religion. however, just as nations have always used religious rethoric to inspire the masses, so do terrorist. There is nothing you can do with the military that will ever change the mindset of the terrorist.
In fact, it is most likely that our actions have increased the number and not lessened them.

I didn't state that religion is the disease. I stated the region is the disease. This means that their economic status, oppressions, inability to voice political oppositions healthily, and lack of education is all a part of this disease. All of this is themed throughout the Middle Eastern Arab world and this is why members of Al-Queda come from all over it. What is it that you state I have wrong? I will add in that the brittle concrete Middle Eastern Arab Islam does facilitate some of this madness.

And we have not increased terrorism at all. This was always a false comfort for critics and safe minded intel theorists. You stated it yourself..."There is nothing you can do with the military that will ever change the mindset of the terrorist." All of this already existed. Shake up a can of soda for decades. Does merely popping the top create the inevitable explosion? All those mindless Sunni tribal robots that traveled from all over to kill the Shia in Iraq and to disrupt attempts to create democracy already existed. Notice how it subsided after enough of them were killed off and Iraqis began to succeed? Notice how wrecked Al-Queda has been throughout the world? Do you honestly think that radicals in Europe don't exist as they merely await an excuse to be what they want to be? With our enemies screaming that our culture infringing upon their's is an assault upon Islam, I don't see how you think that we don't have a ready made enemy already.

The military's role is to kill the terrorist and to create opportunity in this region so that terrorists aren't so easily made. This has always been generational. We are not alone. Along with us are NGOs. In thirty years, people will reflect on the very obvious theme that has been created.
 
Last edited:
Then you must also believe that the entire military has it wrong. I grow tired of this. We don't have a political axe to grind. No elections to concern ourselves with. No media to entertain. No parades on the horizon. There's just the mission that we have understood since this all began. People rising up against their own tyrants was always the hope. It's not my fault that your politicians and media have done you a disservice as they merely scramble about looking for sensationalism and voter points.

When American civilians were concerning themselves with criticizing the Korean War, the military was focusing on Korea and the Cold War. When American civilians were concerning themselves with criticizing the Cuban Missile Crisis, the military was focusing on Cuba and the Cold War. When American civilians were concerning themselves with criticizing the Vietnam War, the military was focusing on Vietnam and the Cold War. What do you think has been happening since 2001? We have been focusing on Afghanistan, Iraq, the Phillipines, Somalia, Djibouti, ....and the WOT. It's the rest of you that have allowed yourselves to miss the grand effort.

You make a huge leap. It isn't about the military. The military takes orders from civilain leaders who are either wise and just and or foolish and reckless and everything inbetween.

And it is about your reasoning. you, like anyone, can be wrong. And you can be without anything be said about the military.





I didn't state that religion is the disease. I stated the region is the disease. This means that their economic status, oppressions, inability to voice political oppositions healthily, and lack of education is all a part of this disease. All of this is themed throughout the Middle Eastern Arab world and this is why members of Al-Queda come from all over it. What is it that you state I have wrong? I will add in that the brittle concrete Middle Eastern Arab Islam does facilitate some of this madness.

And we have not increased terrorism at all. This was always a false comfort for critics and safe minded intel theorists. You stated it yourself..."There is nothing you can do with the military that will ever change the mindset of the terrorist." All of this already existed. Shake up a can of soda for decades. Does merely popping the top create the inevitable explosion? All those mindless Sunni tribal robots that traveled from all over to kill the Shia in Iraq and to disrupt attempts to create democracy already existed. Notice how it subsided after enough of them were killed off and Iraqis began to succeed? Notice how wrecked Al-Queda has been throughout the world? Do you honestly think that radicals in Europe don't exist as they merely await an excuse to be what they want to be? With our enemies screaming that our culture infringing upon their's is an assault upon Islam, I don't see how you think that we don't have a ready made enemy already.

The military's role is to kill the terrorist and to create opportunity in this region so that terrorists aren't so easily made. This has always been generational. We are not alone. Along with us are NGOs. In thirty years, people will reflect on the very obvious theme that has been created.

You're right, you said region. I think from our conversations you put religion in there, but if you say not, I'll accept that.

That said, nothing you suggest as the problem is fixed by distruction and instability. Democracy, while desired, doesn't assure any of those things. It doesn't even assure we'll get a government that will be any less likely to see us as the great satan. Nor will any form of government do away with terrorist. It is not a government thing. No country is threatening us.

The big picture is much more complicated and likely beyond simple hammerish solutions.
 
You are wrong from the start because you think the WOT is about Al-Queda. Plenty of good analysts wrote of the larger picture and what the WOT was going to mean even as Bush coined the title. This was always going to be about the region that creates all the "Al-Quedas." Al-Queda didn't come from a single country. It didn't murder in a single country. We've faced them and seen them in Somalia, Sudan, Phillipines, Iraq, Jordan, etc. And as Qadaffi proved with his prior PANAM terrorist attack, it is not as simple as an old man in a cave called Bin Laden.

Except once again, you put on the blinders and say our enemy= Al Qaeda. Qadaffi engaged in terrorism because the U.S. blocked his efforts to grab the gulf of Sidra, not religious reasons. In 2003 Qadaffi even paid some money and got the sanctions lifted. He harbored no ill will towards the west (except Switzerland for arresting his son) and was not a terrorist threat to the U.S. in the slightest. The intervention in Libya has nothing to do with terrorism as clearly stated by both political and military leadership.

If you want to be safe from religious terror on a massive organized scale, then the region is the disease. Al-Queda is merely a symptom. This is what your military has been doing all along. Do you think we are only dealing with this mess in Afghanistan? That democracy in Iraq wasn't an Al-Queda target? That Pakistan isn't harboring their tribal friendlies? That Bashir in Sudan is without association? That most of this radical mentoring hasn't come out of Egypt over the last 5 decades? Without Al-Queda, our people have died because of this region's mess that we somewhat helped facilitated during the Cold War. This is the WOT.

What does that have to do with Libya?
 
You make a huge leap. It isn't about the military. The military takes orders from civilain leaders who are either wise and just and or foolish and reckless and everything inbetween.

And it is about your reasoning. you, like anyone, can be wrong. And you can be without anything be said about the military.

You ventured off into a different topic. Of course we obey our civilian masters and we oh so thank them for our meat. ........You missed the point completely. Much of what I state here is military instruction. The Pentagon is beyond Washington and has everything to do with guidance of decisions. Rumsfeld was an exception. Our cultural training goes beyond the simple focus of civilians who only see Afganistan...then Iraq...and then Libya. While you focus on how we got in or should we do this or that, we see it all as one giant effort between Cairo and Islamabad (we may as well throw Tripoli in there now). We don't see any of this as seperate because we are immersed within this culture. While Marines and soldiers are flip flopping around from Afghanistan, Iraq, <and other places>, and our civilian diplomats and CENTCOM are addresing social issues within Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Sudan, Egypt, etc. we have been seeing quite clearly the regional war we are in. Eventually we will have gone to war or had our hands into every single Arab nation change, making this much bigger than the symptom of Al-Queda. My reasoning is sound and it goes far beyond what lines on a map tell you. Think Cold War and you will begin to see how much wider Afghanistan and Iraq was always going to be. Our enemy demanded our attention. Well, now they have it.


That said, nothing you suggest as the problem is fixed by distruction and instability.
"Stability" would have these people still under their dictators and creating the environment that breeds religious terror. Temporary instability is exactly what they need. "Stability" is what made our oh so wise politicians preserve Saddam Hussein for 12 years. It's what preserved Mubarak and the House of Saud for decades. Democracy is exactly what they need and want. Without it, they will continue to create and breed religious terrorism on a civilizational scale.


Democracy, while desired, doesn't assure any of those things.

Nothing assures anything so that's not an argument. However, ony democracy is fluid enough to deal with all the problems within the MENA region that create the kind of desperation terrorism needs for fuel. Democracy has bred opportunity and politicial change within the West for a very long time. terrorismis not commonplace in our world. Is it because we are Chrisitan and they are Muslims? You would argue not, yet you dismiss the power of democracy too? I would state that democracy is as assured as you can get.

It doesn't even assure we'll get a government that will be any less likely to see us as the great satan. Nor will any form of government do away with terrorist. It is not a government thing. No country is threatening us.

It didn't take a country to create Al-Queda and the countless other organizations that theme around tribal murder and mayhem. What it took was desparate souls from throughout who have no politicial options within their own oppressing governments. It took a failed region and a failed civilization. Matters were exponentially getting worse until 9/11 finally woke the fools up. And what if they elect a radical along their path? Given that France elected an Emporer and Germany a dictator along their paths, maybe we can give Arabs more than a few years to get it right. Or should we expect perfection after threehundrd years of European colonialismand Cold War prescription? I guarantee they do a far better job than Emporer Napoleon and Adolph Hitler.

And the goal was never to rid the earth of terrorism. It was always to get it to a more manageable position in this religious region where our current enemies are bred.

The big picture is much more complicated and likely beyond simple hammerish solutions.
And you've thought so very hard on this have you? Would like me to post what has been circling the military corners for years? I guarantee you that there is far more going on with this region than CNN or FOX or some half ass President has told you.
 
Last edited:
You ventured off into a different topic. Of course we obey our civilian masters and we oh so thank them for our meat. ........You missed the point completely. Much of what I state here is military instruction. The Pentagon is beyond Washington and has everything to do with guidance of decisions. Rumsfeld was an exception. Our cultural training goes beyond the simple focus of civilians who only see Afganistan...then Iraq...and then Libya. While you focus on how we got in or should we do this or that, we see it all as one giant effort between Cairo and Islamabad (we may as well throw Tripoli in there now). We don't see any of this as seperate because we are immersed within this culture. While Marines and soldiers are flip flopping around from Afghanistan, Iraq, <and other places>, and our civilian diplomats and CENTCOM are addresing social issues within Saudi, Syria, Jordan, Sudan, Egypt, etc. we have been seeing quite clearly the regional war we are in. Eventually we will have gone to war or had our hands into every single Arab nation change, making this much bigger than the symptom of Al-Queda. My reasoning is sound and it goes far beyond what lines on a map tell you. Think Cold War and you will begin to see how much wider Afghanistan and Iraq was always going to be. Our enemy demanded our attention. Well, now they have it.

Actually, it was you who ventured off, and I start off noting that.

And, no, you're dealing more with people who were not your enemy than with our enemy. They are a realitively small number. Afghanistan wasn't our enemy. Neither was Iraq really. We have tensions with Iran, but enemy would be the wrong word. Same with much of the ME.

Our enemy is small in number and unable to defeat us. Our enemy needs us to be reckless in order to do any lasting harm. Sure, they can hurt us, and they still can. Nothing about fighting Jane makes Tarzan unable to hit you. So, mostly our efforts (concerning the big picture) have been ineffective, and this speaks to leadership and not the military.

"Stability" would have these people still under their dictators and creating the environment that breeds religious terror. Temporary instability is exactly what they need. "Stability" is what made our oh so wise politicians preserve Saddam Hussein for 12 years. It's what preserved Mubarak and the House of Saud for decades. Democracy is exactly what they need and want. Without it, they will continue to create and breed religious terrorism on a civilizational scale.

Maybe, maybe not. Egypt freed themselves. In Lybia, they stood up first. It is arrogance to think we're the gift givers of freedom. freedom is earned. People free themselves. It is one thing to help someone who has stood up. It's another to to invade, univited, and decide for someone else.

And let's remember, in the big picture, freedom doesn't mean our problem is solved.




Nothing assures anything so that's not an argument. However, ony democracy is fluid enough to deal with all the problems within the MENA region that create the kind of desperation terrorism needs for fuel.

That's actually incorrect. A democracy can elect a terrorist. Any doubt that a terrorist won't leave later on? The big picture means not making mindless platitudes, but seeking realistic aassessment. What needs to be done starts from the bottom and not the top. The people have to buy an argument, and not be told they were freed from the top.



It didn't take a country to create Al-Queda and the countless other organizations that theme around tribal murder and mayhem. What it took was desparate souls from throughout who have no politicial options within their own oppressing governments. It took a failed region and a failed civilization. Matters were exponentially getting worse until 9/11 finally woke the fools up. And what if they elect a radical along their path? Given that France elected an Emporer and Germany a dictator along their paths, maybe we can give Arabs more than a few years to get it right. Or should we expect perfection after threehundrd years of European colonialismand Cold War prescription? I guarantee they do a far better job than Emporer Napoleon and Adolph Hitler.

You do realize some of the terrorist have no problem with dictators, right? It's hard to argue we hate dictators and we want a dictatorship.

But beyond that, you miss much of the complaint. Many over there simply don't want us interfering in their business. They see freedom as more than a local election, but freedom to not have America dictating their future. Much of what some want concerning this will not happen, but we'd be better served by making a stronger case and using the hammer a little less.


And the goal was never to rid the earth of terrorism. It was always to get it to a more manageable position in this religious region where our current enemies are bred.

Then we have clearly failed. We made the extremist in iran stronger. We made iran stronger on the whole. We likely have more terrorist being bred than we did before we invaded Iraq. Our own CIA estimates have said as much.

And you've thought so very hard on this have you? Would like me to post what has been circling the military corners for years? I guarantee you that there is far more going on with this region than CNN or FOX or some half ass President has told you.

A mypoic view, no matter from which angle it comes from, is still myopic.
 
I care very little what the Arab league says or thinks. Many of those countries are run by dictators who may face (or have faced) political situations and uprisings like in Libya.
 
the arab league, as well, is not reliable

the league will not be stuck with the NATION BUILDING that must naturally ensue if gadaffi goes

we will
 
the arab league, as well, is not reliable

the league will not be stuck with the NATION BUILDING that must naturally ensue if gadaffi goes

we will

The goal of every Muslim leader in the ME has been to remain in power, get rich (family and friends) with very few exceptions....

And since maintaining their power is their primary objective, they will work at suppressing competing political parties, opposition leaders and particularly, religious elements. Have any of the Arab presidents followed strict Muslim teachings? They love their wealth, booze, women and their ****ing power.

They give 2 ****s about nation building.

Period
 
No, he is hinting at the truth. I would throw in "tribal" in front of "Muslim brothers and sisters" for more accuracy. It is historical, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not.

The tribe always stickes together....

1) They condemn Saddam Hussein's actions into Kuwait, yet insist that he be allowed to maintain his control over Baghdad (important religious city to Islam).

2) Saddam Hussein himself bombs Israel as the world sits on his door step in order to appeal to the religious for support, for which they praised him (as well as his paid insurance policies for suicide bombers). A secular dictator appealing to the religious for support? He knew the hatreds within his region.

3) Sunni leadership condemned Hussein's treatment of Muslims in Iraq for twelve years, yet sent in their radical youth from all over the region to murder Muslim Shia and coalition forces after he is removed.

4) Mubarak accuses the outside of meddling with Muslims in a hopes to churn up radical support for his throne.

5) Gudaffi labels us "crusaders," which is a plea to the radical base and a throwback term for religious war. (Notice the dictator trend of desparation?)

6) Al-Jazeera barely noticed the Muslim slaughter in Sudan by a Sunni dictator. I guess the Sunni tribe didn't want the publicity.


The point here is that they always look towards the tribe to ultimately set aside morality against what has become the traditional scapegoat. Thereby, sticking together in a crisis. The Muslim Brotherhood, despite being amongst bad borders and throughout he region, does stick together whenever they need. Their struggle along the way has appeared to be about de-conflicting or balancing good morality, Islam's truer prescriptions, and image with their attempts to unite the people under the common uneducated hate, remain in power, and diversion tactics. The only time they are at each other's throats is when they need to re-establish tribal authoriy against other Muslims (which is a sin within Islam, making them their own ultimate enemy of "God").

I agree with most of what you are saying here except on what basis is Baghdad an important 'religious' city to Islam. It is certainly important in Islamic history and culture, but it is not regarded as one of the three holy cities of the religion. Could you please clarify???
 
Back
Top Bottom