Author Topic: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists  (Read 3367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2015, 07:20:25 PM »
it's hard for me to believe civilized people would wait for normal everyday Muslims to go "I'm not a maniacal murderer" every time this happens.

Nobody is asking you to prove you aren't a maniacal murderer.  We are asking for those that have noticed the ideology permeating in their social circles to speak up and report.  We are asking those with the religious authority to call for these actions.  We are asking for those with the political authority to make this possible and protect those that directly protect the religion against the ideology.

If this didn't keep happening, we would not be calling for responsible actions.

If a member of Dream Theater went on a rampage, I wouldn't be saying "well, David Prater really pushed them over the edge."  That's about as relevant as Muslim scholars now pointing to France's involvement in Algiers.  That can be countered with "well the Middle East's involvement with Nazi Germany ...." and that game can be played all day.  We need to address the here and now.
If the local KKK chapter starts talking about firebombing churches I'd be happy to drop a dime on them. Strange thing, though. They don't invite me over. Not sure why. I wasn't briefed on the last bank robbery plot, either. Selfish bastards.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2015, 07:51:50 PM »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2015, 08:21:22 PM »
The point you're plainly missing is that the reason I don't get invited to the crossburnings is because they have no reason to think I like or agree with their practices. The reason nobody's ever invited me to plan a bank robbery is because I might just drop a dime on them. People doing bad things confide in their own kind, which doesn't include people opposed to bad things even if they are the same race, creed species. You make it sound like all Moslems know who the terrorists are, what they're planning and are complicit by failing to act. That's silly and insulting. You go down to your local mosque and I doubt you're going to hear planning for the next attack. Terrorist cells wouldn't still be in business if they didn't know well enough to not broadcast their intentions or their thoughts to the majority who would disapprove.

And since you expanded on the KKK thing, despite it merely being an amusing way to make a point you didn't get, it's easy to get government involvement and public shaming because most people know who they are. You think most people know who the radical Moslems are? If that were the case this wouldn't bee a problem.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2015, 10:24:17 PM »
The point you're plainly missing
I'm not missing your mistaken point.  I'm just pointing out it has no bearing as I have not heard anybody claim that every single Muslim has some Islamic Terrorist newsletter (although the social network and magazine is pretty brazen).  I'm dismissing your point as pointless.  Put in a way some might understand, you are on the wrong side of history.

Quote
You make it sound like all Moslems know who the terrorists are, what they're planning and are complicit by failing to act. That's silly and insulting.
I agree.  Your misrepresentation is silly, insulting and unproductive.

Quote
You go down to your local mosque and I doubt you're going to hear planning for the next attack. Terrorist cells wouldn't still be in business if they didn't know well enough to not broadcast their intentions or their thoughts to the majority who would disapprove.
You aren't really following history.  I am well aware of a famous jihadi that is known as the Azzam the American.  He went all over Southern California stirring up trouble and showing blatant signs of radicalization.  This is a common story.   Not every single mosque is part of the *brotherhood*, but many that are radicalized are very well known.

Quote
And since you expanded on the KKK thing, despite it merely being an amusing way to make a point you didn't get, it's easy to get government involvement and public shaming because most people know who they are. You think most people know who the radical Moslems are? If that were the case this wouldn't bee a problem.

Not sure if serious.  Islamic Terrorism is much more widespread than the KKK ever was.
Your point seems to be that the solution is for the Moslems to start narcing each other out and condemning them publicly. I'm saying that it's silly to think that it's A: not already happening, and B: that it's such a simple thing to do. The end result of that stance is that you're blaming Moslems (and liberals whenever possible) for all of this. I think there's a ton of blame to go around, but I also think you're simplifying your target.

Also, if I remember my islamofascists correctly, Azzam was a local boy. American born and raised, and quite possibly by American parents. Young dude and played in a rock band. He then decided to stir up trouble and become a radical. Since when is any of that illegal for a US citizen? Your birth certificate is a license to be as "radicalized" as you wish. Did he conspire to commit crimes? Did he commit crimes? That's when you become a criminal. He offered spiritual support for people against America.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2015, 10:15:59 AM »
Storm: Good read. Curious how much is true. Likely a lot, but the fact that you can't trust the CIA is well known and frankly blaming it on "the current administration" doesn't exactly help you cause. Probably why I blew it off the first time. Frankly, our intelligence services have been unreliable and misguided for quite some time. Furthermore, abandoning him, as I think you put it, simply meant not paying him $5mil that he thought he deserved so he walked. What you call abandonment is what appears to be him walking away over a money dispute.

Egypt: in all honestly, the political situation there is such a clusterfuck that I don't pay much mind to what they have to say. In another 10 years or so things will have some sort of stability and their actions will have more international significance. If Metty gets back to here he could chime in on that remark, but I'll take a pass for now.

And for the record, I don't disagree with you on this particular premise. Government support is certainly vital here. Just don't construe the fact that it doesn't always work out as it not happening or the fault of people you don't like.

Religious backing (which I also agree with you on) is also important. Seems to me that it does happen. It's just not particularly effective for a variety of reasons you've already conceded.

Social circle awareness: yet another point where I agree with you in principle, but don't think is anywhere far as effective as you seem to. People who are planning dangerous criminal acts tend not to blab about it. And there is no religious aspect to the Klan or the bank robbers; hence my usage as an example.

Next, calm down a bit. I'm largely on board with your approach and goals. I dispute a few aspects of it which I'm raising and you act like I'm ridiculing your entire worldview on it. Our overall views are different, but I've certainly go no problem with preventing assholes like the French guys from acting out. I just don't place quite the importance on it you do, and as such am not willing to go quite as far as you would in dealing with it. In any case, you act as if I'm trying to be unfair with my discussion with you and it's certainly not the case.

As for Azzam, he's certainly an interesting fellow. I'll refresh myself on him sometime, but to the best of my recollection he was strictly in the propaganda wing, and I frankly don't care about them. When I say that I'm not willing to take things as far as you, exploding US citizens for their thoughts (or even criminalizing them) certainly falls into that equation. His actions certainly made him somebody worth paying attention to, but not criminal to the best of my recollection. I started a thread about al Alawki a while back that pretty much goes into all of this.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 10:38:54 AM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5183
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2015, 11:00:13 AM »
And of course there are scholars of Islam, just as there are scholars of Christianity, of Judaism, of Roman history, of archaeology, of literature, etc.  Basically, the scholars are the ones who are the most well-read, and the ones who write and develop thought and study.  In any field.

I'm sure there are scholars of Sidhe (pronounced Shee) but I don't believe any of them promote belief in fairies. It's one thing to be a scholar of Roman and Greek gods, it's a completely different thing to be a scholar who makes truth claims based on Roman or Greek mythology. In your list above, some of these things are not like the others.
Scholarship has nothing to do with belief.  Some religious scholars are believers, and some aren't.  The word refers to academics and study; any field has scholars.

Great point! I'm definitely guilty of applying personal definitions that are meaningless to the conversation. I gratefully stand corrected and apologies to all.

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2770
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2015, 11:00:42 AM »
And of course there are scholars of Islam, just as there are scholars of Christianity, of Judaism, of Roman history, of archaeology, of literature, etc.  Basically, the scholars are the ones who are the most well-read, and the ones who write and develop thought and study.  In any field.

I'm sure there are scholars of Sidhe (pronounced Shee) but I don't believe any of them promote belief in fairies. It's one thing to be a scholar of Roman and Greek gods, it's a completely different thing to be a scholar who makes truth claims based on Roman or Greek mythology. In your list above, some of these things are not like the others.
Just so you know, this post makes you sound like someone who just took two weeks of an Intro to Philosophy course and 'totally understands how the world really works, man'.
You aren't coming across as smart, profound, or edgy. You're coming across as someone who's trying too hard to sound that way.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5183
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2015, 11:08:24 AM »
Okay. I agree.


Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6436
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2015, 08:23:56 PM »
Nobody is asking you to prove you aren't a maniacal murderer.  We are asking for those that have noticed the ideology permeating in their social circles to speak up and report.  We are asking those with the religious authority to call for these actions.  We are asking for those with the political authority to make this possible and protect those that directly protect the religion against the ideology.

If this didn't keep happening, we would not be calling for responsible actions.

I understand what you're saying but I'd like to comment that those with religious authority over Muslims are given no power by the religion itself to command it's followers and we don't have a Pope kind of person. They're merely interpreters, that's what the word Mufti means. The radical/rebellious factions will always be able to convince and recruit kids.
The political authority is already the enemy of the people -not just Muslim people- in most Middle Eastern countries. They govern by fear, repression and tear gas grenades. Our guy in Egypt is the worst of them but he's also the smartest and knows what to say to maintain western acceptance to remain in power.
This is an old article about the Egyptian president that I kept bookmarked cause it's one of the few English ones that I came across that explains how this guy came about, he's Augusto Pinochet reincarnated and Egypt now is Chile of 1973, possibly off topic but if you and Barto are interested..

That's about as relevant as Muslim scholars now pointing to France's involvement in Algiers.  That can be countered with "well the Middle East's involvement with Nazi Germany ...." and that game can be played all day.  We need to address the here and now.

Oh I'm with you on not reopening topics of the past when it comes to things like this and I rarely do myself, the only reason is that I come to realize that realistically speaking the current average Joe will not stop being an angry meat head long enough to read some modern history, cause yes the scholars are right and none of what's happening now is out of the blue. Every radical Islamist acts of violence are consequences to what happened the last 100 years. Looking at the bigger picture it's a surprise it only got so bad the last 20 or so years.
I don't really think it's a game that can be played all day, when you say "Middle East's involvement with Nazi Germany" I assume you're talking about Amin Husseini, the Palestinian Mufti allied himself with Germany in 1941, that was a no-other-choice kind of thing as the British continued to help Zionist paramilitary groups like the Haganah and Irgun fight the Palestinian people and their revolution against the British, stealing lands and relocating Zionist settlers. Who could he have turned to for help at these times? The only enemy of valid threat to the British empire, Germany. It didn't matter who was in power in Germany, Germany wasn't only the enemy of a conventional political enemy, it was the enemy of the empire actively supporting the ethnic cleansing of his home land. Again off topic but I just thought to comment on what you said.
And France's occupation of Algeria and it's subsequent tries to control the Algeria even after the occupation are not ancient and a quick read through Algeria's modern history would shed the light on so many things on how the current French society came to formulate.
So addressing the here and the now is an idea that I agree with you on but only for lack of alternative, we're not in the world of people who read or even listen anymore, something I can't blame the average Joe himself for, modern day pressures has driven us all to ADHD.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2015, 11:36:43 AM »
"It goes without saying."   No, it doesn't when the saying itself is an overt act of rebellion.   I don't have to say "it is bad to hang a black man to a tree" because there is no established interpretation of a mainstream religious text that says it is.  That DOES go without saying because the only counter to that is the bigoted beliefs of what has come to be a relatively small minority.   Contrast that with established sects of the religion that call on death to unbelievers and who act on that premise explicitly, then it DOES require saying.   It DOES require those that share most of the same beliefs - and more importantly, share in the same rituals and societal construct - to say "well, we agree he's the prophet, we agree that our beliefs are more than just "religion" but rather govern how we live our live, but we as people have to draw the line at actually KILLING those that don't believe exactly as we do and with the same fervor.".
What percentage of believers is the threshhold for it being accepted mainstream belief? My only issue here is that you seem to be making your point based strictly on class size. There aren't enough people who actually think lynching is acceptable for it to matter, but there are enough who believe slaughtering infidels is okey-dokey that all of them need to publicly denounce it. Moreover, it seems to me that calling their actions fucking disgusting and shameful (the saying in question) is hardly an overt act of rebellion except in small, sect driven Moslem communities.

Well, yes and no.   I think I went overboard to not use absolutes in my post.  I don't know that there is ANY religious text that calls for lynching based on skin color, and you're also talking about complicated issues of jurisdiction.  I know of some people who follow the rules and laws of society not because they believe them, but because it is simply simpler and less hassle to do so, and if there ever was a major conflict between the rules of society and their religion, their religion would trump that. 

I guess I was looking to make the distinction between just random bad acts with a lame excused tied to them versus something that could be construed to have some sort of implicit (or in some cases, explicit) condonement by a larger body.

Quote
Also a valid point that I don't disagree with. At the same time, doesn't there come a point when hashtags and bumperstickers move beyond solidarity and into alienation? Like I said in last night's ramble, a big part of my issue here is that the labels and slogans become counterproductive. The more you convince the masses that Islam is the problem the more you slide the scale over to the side of extremism.

Preaching to the choir; again I opted for simplicity to my detriment.  I think in MOST cases the slogan goes beyond solidarity.  I'm with you on that.   I think that problem is even more egregious when you get away from the sort of "life and death" issues we're talking about here and go to more everyday things (I'm thinking political causes; you'd be hard pressed to find any meaningful political sloganeering here in the States that doesn't at least have SOME element of alienation for those that don't buy into the sentiment).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2015, 11:50:52 AM »
"It goes without saying."   No, it doesn't when the saying itself is an overt act of rebellion.   I don't have to say "it is bad to hang a black man to a tree" because there is no established interpretation of a mainstream religious text that says it is.  That DOES go without saying because the only counter to that is the bigoted beliefs of what has come to be a relatively small minority.   Contrast that with established sects of the religion that call on death to unbelievers and who act on that premise explicitly, then it DOES require saying.

I was never taught "death to unbelievers" anywhere and I grew up as a Muslim in a religious family in a Muslim country, I have never seen anything that says that except written in arguments on the internet. I have never personally met someone who would seriously kill for the sake of religion. The furthest I've seen in religious text is something along the lines of to "fight unbelievers if they fight you and try to take over your land or turn you on your religion". I dunno if it's at all relevant but the words for "fight" and "kill" are spelled the same in Arabic but pronounced differently.
The reason I think it goes without saying is that why would someone live in a Western society and have Western friends if an indivisible part of their entity says to randomly kill them cause they don't believe what I believe? Just why would I go through the trouble of surrounding myself with my enemies at all times? And if I'm to kill the unbelievers then how do I pick who to kill? do I go for a GTA style rampage? These extremists and their interruption of Islam is so insanely dumb and illogical but it's hard for me to believe civilized people would wait for normal everyday Muslims to go "I'm not a maniacal murderer" every time this happens.
Barto drives through the point better.

I hope you take this in the spirit of the discussion, in the event I don't word things as eloquently as I hope going in.

To some degree I read your post and I got it, but there was a nagging thought of "well, that's YOU."    There are equal elements of the Bible that encourage misinterpretation (and I'm not suggesting I know what is the "right" interpretation, mind you) including points on homosexuality, abortion, murder, suicide, so that isn't something new.   But you do see this sort of thing in a lesser way in Christianity here in the States.   The notion of "homosexuality" as a sin, for example.   There are probably as many interpretations as to what man should do regarding homosexuality as there are sects, but that my belief is different than, say, an Episcopalian's doesn't in and of itself make either's bad.   But if we're both Episcopalian, and we have different views on subject X, doesn't there have to be some dialogue, be it in the church, or via bold statements as to opposing viewpoints, or something?  Am I to just assume I'm right, assume they're wrong, and that everyone else will get it via osmosis over time?

I can't comment on your upbringing, because one, I'm not you, and two, it would be inappropriate to assume on something so personal.   But I would ask you this question:  what relevance TO OTHERS does your interpretation have?  Meaning, you COULD come to the West and immerse yourself in a certain culture if you interpret things a certain way, but that doesn't preclude others from interpreting things differently.  I'm small c christian, and large c Catholic, but I don't interpret everything the exact same way as Rome does.  I use condoms.   On a practical level, it's a cost/benefit analysis, and on a spiritual level, I consider that we are all sinners, and the sin of using a rubber is hopefully lesser than, say, killing someone in cold blood. 

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6436
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2015, 10:44:06 PM »
I'm sorry fellas I get very little time on an actual computer a day and I spent the last hour typing a reply to Calvin to answer his questions and I couldn't even finish that. I'll try my best to finish it tomorrow and also reply to Stadler.
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2015, 06:40:05 AM »
This is ballsy. I really hope a more severe form of retaliation isn't seen.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/13/charlie-hebdo-publishing-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-on-cover-new-issue/

Offline Progmetty

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6436
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2015, 09:21:31 PM »
I wrote most of this two weeks ago but as I mentioned in the first comment I made in this thread; I usually avoid visiting the P&R section cause posting here requires follow up and time which I don't really have. 6 week of twin babies would do that to you, double as bad I got the full on flu last week and their temperature started rising as well so I've been running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. I'm saying all this so you'd 1- excuse the rushed writing skills ahead, 2- excuse the delay.
Anyway here we go:
___________________________________________________________________________

Calvin I have a few comments on the first two paragraphs of your reply but I also have very little time on line on my computer per day so I'm gonna get to your direct questions right away.

Is that an exaggeration or is he literally the worst?  You have to cut the West some slack on this because every time it is presented that the latest move was in the right direction, it turns out the previous repression was actually "holding the radicals" back and vice versa.  We can try to stay informed, but it would be all encompassing to have an accurate score card on every move in an area that seems to be in constant disarray.

I do cut the West a lot of slack, I don't believe you have any decent sources of information on what goes on their, everything you get from Western media and internet is either falsified or selective IMHO. I don't blame people or individuals on that.
I think he is the worst, because he's the most intelligent, he knows he needs street support along with the army and the riot police. Most if not all others depend solely on the latter to repress. So manipulates, acts and uses the media so incredibly well, that paid off for him big time so far as I'll mention again in reply to the string of questions below.
Can you expand on what is troubling and what isn't in the article:
- The coup was planned
- He wrote of a pan-Islamic Caliphate as recent as 2006
- He wants to tax the rich
- He wants to end subsidies
- He has a drive that can be either good or bad depending on how it is applied
- that Morsi/Mubarak are gone/should still be in power or Morsi/Mubarak/Sisi should all be gone
- He comes from the military

Quote
- The coup was planned
- Yes is the short answer and the long answer would be ridiculously long so I'm gonna try my best to do a good cliff's notes so we're clear on the background of how planning the coup came together:
* Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood came to power a year after the revolution, a year during which the SCAF (Supereme Counsel of Armed Forces) ruled the country. Also a year during which SCAF had the MB and most political factions convinced that legitimate presidential and parliamentary elections are the goal SCAF is going towards. A lot of people, mainly the original revolutionaries of 25th January 2011, were very doubtful and suspicious of SCAF's intent and with time increasingly felt that the revolution has only toppled the head of the corrupt regime, Mubarak, but not the very system that made Mubarak and had ruled the country since 1952.
* The Muslim Brotherhood allied themselves with the SCAF against calls of a second wave of revolution and successfully made the path to the elections easier and faster as SCAF wanted, mainly cause the MB knew they'd easily win in a fair elections since they have so much ground control with religion, charities and history of struggle against corrupt regimes. They were right to think that as they also were the most organized institution in Egypt, second only to SCAF. The revolutionaries insisted that the writing of the constitution comes before the presidential elections, they were right but they were unorganized and were never able to form and unified front.
* SCAF allowed Egypt's first fair elections in it's history to take place, feeling safe about either outcome since they knew they had the MB wrapped around their fingers and on the other hand the other finalist candidate was one of their own and the last prime minister appointed by Mubarak. The MB won as the revolutionaries and other political factions flocked to vote for the candidate that is NOT Mubarak's choice of anything. The saying back then was "Squeeze a lemon and eat it", there was no other choice. I personally boycotted the second round of elections, the first round had thirteen candidates and my candidate, a socialist, finished third.
* Morsi is president, retired and decorated the old guard of SCAF and appointed El Sisi Defense Minister, thinking El Sisi is more likely to play ball due to his thesis (see answer to your following question below), Morsi and the MB were of course fools to think that.
* A constitution was written, various political figures representing different factions were invited into the committee that wrote it but resigned claiming that the MB and military's representation were too dominant. A referendum of yes or no on the new constitution was conducted and it was a Yes, again because of the power and influence the MB had on the average Joe. I voted no cause the constitution was basically the same as the one we had since 1973 with a few insignificant alterations, I voted no as I did with every other fuckin referendum in Egypt and Yes always wins.
* We, the original revolutionaries, all got increasingly frustrated with Morsi really quick as:
1. We see him decorate the SCAF members we view as murderers and remnants of Mubarak's regime
2. No one was brought to justice or stood trial for the murder of protesters during and in the year after the revolution. A promise he had made to get non-Islamic votes of revolutionaries.
3. The previously government censored media started operating differently, seemingly freely and seemingly pro the goals of the revolution. They extensively highlighted Morsi's incompetency and drove the masses to believe numerous laughable conspiracy theories about the MB's intentions with Egypt, this can be expanded upon as with every other point here but I'm really trying to keep it short and apparently failing heh
4. He couldn't restore safety on the streets as he promised. Crime rates were at an all time high and in retrospect this was part of what led to the coup, the police/interior ministry that is.
5. Didn't make any new friends away from other Islamists and the military, alienated everyone else by shoving MB's political figures/talking heads/buffoons/currently in prison that kept praising him and bullying his opposition in the media.
* There were two major supply problems during Morsi's year in power, gas and electricity. Gas became scarce and nobody knew why, cars lined up for hours at gas stations to got a few liters, the media starting feeding these wild conspiracy theories about how he sends all of the gas to Hamas for charity. And the power got shut off for days in the hot summer which made a lot of lives hell, also somehow contributed to sending the electricity to Hamas, whatever the fuck that means.
* He couldn't get to pass any laws to even appease the political factions, due to the continuous resistance from Egypt's supreme court who's judges have all been appointed by Mubarak and hell bent on crippling Morsi by means of bureaucracy and further portraying him as incompetent for everyone, media portrays the judges as heroes making a stand against a potential tyrant.
* The supreme courts ruled the newly elected parliament unconstitutional and dissolved it.
* In an act of desperation Morsi issued a decree giving himself powers overriding the Supreme courts, that was the last nail in the MB's coffin.
* 3 young Egyptians launched a movement called "Rebel", with the objective of gather 15 million Egyptian signatures on a document they wrote up, the document demands the resignation of Morsi by June 30th 2013, a year after his inauguration. The campaign spread like wild fire due to the immense support of the media, I fell for it passionately and volunteered in the campaigning, going to coffee shops and restaurants where Egyptians gather, with the "Rebel" form to gather signatures, I got into long arguments and discussions, turned over people who's simple argument was to let the democratic be maintained and we shall remove him in the elections after he spends his first term. They were right and I was dead wrong, I couldn't not foresee the things to come and played a role in this masquerade like a fool, like a million other Egyptian activists.
* People who signed the Rebel document were expected to take to the streets on the day of June 30th to show their numbers, it was a massive demonstration, even bigger than the 25th of January revolution because this time the police made sure to facilitate the people's presence in the streets and not counter it. I called my family and friends to go to the protests.
* July 1st Sisi appeared in a good looking scene with Muslims, Christian and liberal leaders sitting behind him between Egyptian flags. He issued Morsi a 48 hours ultimatum to do what the people demand or be removed.
* July 3rd Sisi announces the removal of Morsi and suspending the constitution, I choke up with emotions watching the speech at work and my nationalistic senses wiggle  :facepalm: and national celebrations ran amok.
This was followed by the crackdown on "terrorists", adapting the modern definition of the word which is "People who are not doing as I say". Protests of those who support Morsi and voted for him were met with extreme violence from the army, hundreds were killed in cold blood, dozens of thousands of activists of all political orientations were arrested if they didn't support the coup, beside everyone who ever even though about the MB positively.
* The interim president appointed by Sisi declared a protest law, the law is simple, no protests except in designated areas and with pre-requested police approval. Which is a not very smart way to say "no more protests".
* Mere weeks after the coup the power was significantly gone and gas problem was completely gone.
* Revolutionary figures went out to protest the protest law, they're all in jail now, every single person connected to the original 25th of January revolution is currently in jail.
* Average Joe is sick and tired of the revolution and the protests and wants to go back to normal life, he's also tickled with all the nationalistic feelings Sisi pumped into him about saving Egypt from the evils of Brotherhood, so he either wildly approves the on going oppression, murder and injustice or just turns the blind eye cause "it's gonna pass and we'll go back to normal eventually".
* Ahmed Ezz, Alla, Gamal Mubarak and many other figures of the Mubarak regime were acquitted from allegations of corruptions they were arrested for after the revolution.
* Hosni Mubarak himself and top figures of the interior ministry that were tried for ordering the killing of protesters were acquitted.
* The media stops highlighting all the economic, political, infrastructure and corruption problems they extensively pointed out during Morsi's year and go back to entertaining the masses and plugging them back into the Matrix. Which wouldn't work with anywhere with more educated and aware people, which we don't have much of and the ones we do have are now in jail or chose to give up on that shit hole, shamefully I'm of the latter faction.
Above is highlights of how the coup came to work, it wouldn't have worked if it wasn't planned to be a popular coup cause the army knew, as they did in 2011, that they can't stop a full scale revolution in Egypt and the best way is to make it seem like they took the people's side.
There's much more details to all the points above but the whole deal is too long and complicated in how it went down even though this was only over the course of three years. So I tried to keep it short but I couldn't and that was me trying not to go into too much detail.
Quote
- He wrote of a pan-Islamic Caliphate as recent as 2006
- This is Sisi's thesis for the U.S. Army War College, on Democracy in the Middle East. I for the one agree with a whole bunch of points he makes in it but everything he has done since the 2011 revolution until now is so contradicting to that paper so it's either that he was full of poop and didn't mean any of it or he used to believe all that and he doesn't anymore cause being in power is just sweeter.. and full of poop. I'm leaning towards the second one.
I personally don't see a Caliphate as a bad or threatening thing, a federation or a European style union. I think calling it Caliphate I guess is what makes it sound like something medieval to Western ears. But it doesn't have a chance of happening anyway now that the Arab spring has failed.
Quote
- He wants to tax the rich
- He never said anything about taxing the rich, some people interpreted a few things he said before he was elected as if he was going to be a champion of the poor and nothing he did so far inspires that.
Quote
- He wants to end subsidies
- He is ending subsidies little by little so that he wouldn't face an uproar of any kind, so he's upsetting different segments of the social structure separately. Started for example by removing subsidies from gas and the prices jumped, people got upset but the media played it off fast, it would have been worse if he had done that at the same time he removes subsidies from power bills.

Quote
- He has a drive that can be either good or bad depending on how it is applied

- Okay about his "drive", this is subjective and my opinion is that nothing good can come out of someone who shed that much of the blood of his own people, Sisi keeps saying things that appeal to Western media but contradicts it in his domestic actions.

Quote
- that Morsi/Mubarak are gone/should still be in power or Morsi/Mubarak/Sisi should all be gone
- I think it was a mistake to overthrow Morsi, we could have played politics with Morsi and eventually come to a balance in powers, he had nothing to attach him to the rule after his term or terms were over so we know for sure democracy would have survived, we never had that with Mubarak and will never have that with Sisi, who have the military power on their side and have shown to be willing to use it against the people. I've now come to know Morsi had no powers and never really ruled Egypt. I'd be naive to say "that Morsi/Mubarak/Sisi should all be gone", if they're all gone different copies of them would be in power. Sisi is a slicker version of Mubarak anyway and not an entirely different creature.

Quote
- He comes from the military

I think that's covered in the previous points but yeah, he IS the military and Egypt is now under military rule, we are North Korea if North Korea played ball with the west.

Quote
I don't really think it's a game that can be played all day, when you say "Middle East's involvement with Nazi Germany" I assume you're talking about Amin Husseini, the Palestinian Mufti allied himself with Germany in 1941, that was a no-other-choice kind of thing as the British continued to ...

And that's kind of the point.  The US is part of most of this stuff because of alliances.  Vietnam from the French.  Israel originally was backed by the Soviet Union.  Then Great Britain and France became involved during the blockades of ports.  And the US kind of came in to help the UK and France only to be kind of left with a "ok, you got this now?  bye."  And then you get into Egypt becoming one of the strongest Soviet allies.

Well I thought we were talking about the West and not specifically the US, cause I thought that's a slightly different bag of worms discussion if we're gonna be specific to why Arabs have a problem with the U.S. By taling Algeria and France, among others, we were talking about European colonies in the middle east that existed well into the second half of the 20th century.

At some point, grudges need to be put in the attic and allowed to deteriorate into dust.  If the Middle East wants the West to forget about history brought about alliances, then they have to be willing to do the same.

Well it's not about grudges and hard feelings IMHO, it's about cause and effect. If there's a monster then it's been created bone by bone, it did not arise to itself, the current situation is not born of current conflicts but as I mentioned earlier; discussing history falls on deaf ears.

In your opinion, what countries of the Middle East today represent *the goal*?

Tunisia, ironically the country that sparked the Arab spring is the only one on the right path, Islamists (the right), socialists (the left) and liberals seem to have a good grip on the concept of checks and balances and willing to work together. My opinion on why it worked for them is another different can of worms that would be off topic here so I edited it out, also cause I'm trying to be more factual than opinionated here.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 09:29:00 PM by Progmetty »
I wouldn't want somebody with 18 kids to mow my damn lawn, based on a longstanding bias I have against crazy fucks.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16597
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #49 on: January 30, 2015, 03:30:30 AM »
Maher on Jimmy Kimmel last night

Maher says liberals are confused when it comes to Muslim terrorists.

He's right.  I see so many people now who identify themselves as liberal trashing christianity on a regular basis, but the minute anyone says a bad word about Islam, it's suddenly a very bad thing, which makes zero sense.  Muslims, in general, are very much against homosexuality and equal rights for women, which goes against the modern day liberal playbook, so yeah, like Maher said, it makes no sense.

I never understood that either and it's something I realized a while ago. It's as ironic as the staunch Catholic conservatives who fail to realize that following everything Jesus said probably makes them liberals.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16597
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2015, 04:27:02 AM »
I never understood that either and it's something I realized a while ago. It's as ironic as the staunch Catholic conservatives who fail to realize that following everything Jesus said probably makes them liberals.

Well ....

Liberals don't share "their money" they want to share "that dude's money"
Oh and don't forget the whole contempt for Catholicism largely comes from liberals.  Let's abolish the church for molesting children, what's that you say is going on in the public school system?  Don't know nuttin' bout dat.

I agree completely about the hypocrisy and cherry picking going on. However, I think it's fair to say that exists on both sides of the aisle. You can point at the many excuses liberals make for Muslims while consistently railing Christians.  You can also look at somebody like Newt Gingrinch who says gay marriage would ruin the institute of marriage while being one of the worst examples of a good husband in recent times. Neither side can profess innocence without crossing their fingers behind their backs.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2015, 07:35:26 AM »
I never understood that either and it's something I realized a while ago. It's as ironic as the staunch Catholic conservatives who fail to realize that following everything Jesus said probably makes them liberals.

Well ....

Liberals don't share "their money" they want to share "that dude's money"
Oh and don't forget the whole contempt for Catholicism largely comes from liberals.  Let's abolish the church for molesting children, what's that you say is going on in the public school system?  Don't know nuttin' bout dat.

I agree completely about the hypocrisy and cherry picking going on. However, I think it's fair to say that exists on both sides of the aisle. You can point at the many excuses liberals make for Muslims while consistently railing Christians.  You can also look at somebody like Newt Gingrinch who says gay marriage would ruin the institute of marriage while being one of the worst examples of a good husband in recent times. Neither side can profess innocence without crossing their fingers behind their backs.

Of course that is true; but at the risk of being called out by the one or two people here that mistakenly consider me a "conservative", those two examples are not really analogous.   The former is simply cherry-picking based on personal preference.  Supporting "Islam" is easy, as it has no personal ramifications; being fair to Christianity is hard because of the perception that "Christian" equals "Conservative" even though fully 85% of the American population is "Christian" in the traditional sense.  The "political" Christians - the evangelicals I call them - are only about 12% to 15% of the population, and while vocal, are a distinct (and predominantly powerless) minority. 

The latter is just being a bad person.   Calling out Newt is no different than calling out Bill Clinton (one of my favorite Presidents).   Monica Lewinsky no more affected his ability to govern than whether he wore a tie or not, so I don't believe Newt's position on marriage requires him to be a stellar husband.   

I think the real root of this though is the notion of "professing innocence".   Not that it ever existed, but it would be nice for once to have a person - politician or regular Joe - put the effort into arriving at the "best answer" as opposed to "the best answer for me personally".   The two are not the same.    I think that is where the real hypocrisy comes in; I think some of the people (on both sides of the aisle) that start to think that what they think and what is good for them personally should be the law of the land - usually under the guise of "authenticity" - are the real hypocrites.  So the "liberal" (your word, not mine) that supports Islam because it is the right thing to do but castigates "Christians" because - whether consciously or not - they believe it might threaten their political position by giving legitimacy to someone who might be a political rival (even if that perception is patently false) is where I have the issue. 

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16597
  • Gender: Male
  • Truth is not for all men, only those who seek it.
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #52 on: January 30, 2015, 08:21:56 AM »
SInce Calvin and Stadler both went after the same point I made and responded with somewhat similar responses to my comparison, I'll answer you both with the same response if you don't mind.   :)

I'm in no way saying that my comparison was to lead one to believe that both issues carry the same level of severity.  Obviously beheadings and  shootings carry different weight than someone's treatment of the institution of marriage.  I was just making a broad generalization about hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. I'm sure if I put a little more thought into it I could have come up with something equally severe on the Republican side of things.

Calling out Newt is justified, in my opinion, by the fact that he has vocally spoken out about gay marriage because he felt it would ruin the sanctity of marriage meanwhile he is now on his third wife I believe. Bill Clinton just  cheated on his wife and had no contradictory opinion stating anything regarding the sanctity of marriage. So there is more hypocrisy coming from Newt's end the way I see it. How does this even relate to the issue of liberals and Muslims?  Like someone pointed out earlier, it's ironic that liberals make excuses for Muslims and give them more leeway than they do Christians, while at the same time the Muslim paradigm of no quality for women and gays goes directly against one of the biggest issues that liberals fight for. Maybe I went way off topic to make my point so I do apologize for that. 


Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18865
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #53 on: January 30, 2015, 08:27:58 AM »
Oh and don't forget the whole contempt for Catholicism largely comes from liberals.  Let's abolish the church for molesting children, what's that you say is going on in the public school system?  Don't know nuttin' bout dat.
Don't think I've ever heard the abolish the church thing, but that's just me. What I do know (strictly my personal opinion) is that it's the protestants who seem to have the most hostility towards the church. Hell, we've had discussions here with plenty of Christians as to whether or not Catholics even fit under the Christian banner. I know my Presbyterian boss sure hates them. Ironically, it seems the Catholics actually get more respect from the Moslems than American Christians; go figure. Again, simply my personal perspective.


detailed post

Thanks for taking the time to share your unique perspective.

I read Sisi's democracy in the Middle East paper, but I need more time to talk about it.  One of the things that raised my eyebrow was the idea of a fourth branch of government for Middle East democracy:  the religious branch.  Thoughts on that?
I think it's an interesting approach. In fact, I always considered Iran's Islamic Republic an interesting approach, yet just like most forms of government it usually just winds up sucking pretty hard in it's corrupt self-servedness. I think the problem is going to wind up being that they can't make a religious branch that's merely equal to the others, which seems to be where Iran has run afoul.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9461
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paris satirical newspaper attacked by Islamic jihadists
« Reply #54 on: January 30, 2015, 12:16:12 PM »
Swear to God I didn't see Calvin's reply before I posted mine.  Purely coincidence that we used the same examples.