zaterdag 29 januari 2011

Arab Regimes 18



A Manifesto for Change in Egypt

  •  
 
Egyptian police used water cannon against Nobel laureate and pro-democracy leader Mohamed ElBaradei and his supporters as anti-Mubarak protests heated up Friday. Then ElBaradei was put under house arrest as riot police used tear gas and rubber bullets on protesters.
On the eve of his return, the former U.N. official who is the Mubarak regime's most high-profile opponent shared his thoughts on the young people who’ve taken to the streets, political Islam, and the role of the United States. Plus, full coverage of the protests in Egypt
When Egypt had parliamentary elections only two months ago, they were completely rigged. The party of President Hosni Mubarak left the opposition with only 3 percent of the seats. Imagine that. And the American government said that it was “dismayed.” Well, frankly, I was dismayed that all it could say is that it was dismayed. The word was hardly adequate to express the way the Egyptian people felt.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Then, as protests built in the streets of Egypt following the overthrow of Tunisia’s dictator, I heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assessment that the government in Egypt is “stable” and “looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. I wasflabbergasted—and I was puzzled. What did she mean by stable, and at what price? Is it the stability of 29 years of “emergency” laws, a president with imperial power for 30 years, a parliament that is almost a mockery, a judiciary that is not independent? Is that what you call stability? I am sure not. And I am positive that it is not the standard you apply to other countries. What we see in Egypt is pseudo-stability, because real stability only comes with a democratically elected government.
If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer. People were absolutely disappointed in the way you reacted to Egypt’s last election. You reaffirmed their belief that you are applying a double standard for your friends, and siding with an authoritarian regime just because you think it represents your interests. We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans.
So when you say the Egyptian government is looking for ways to respond to the needs of the Egyptian people, I feel like saying, “Well, it’s too late!” This isn’t even good realpolitik. We have seen what happened in Tunisia, and before that in Iran. That should teach people there is no stability except when you have government freely chosen by its own people.
Of course, you in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That’s obviously bogus. If we are talking about Egypt, there is a whole rainbow variety of people who are secular, liberal, market-oriented, and if you give them a chance they will organize themselves to elect a government that is modern and moderate. They want desperately to catch up with the rest of the world.
Article - Egypt Protests GAL LAUNCH
Victoria Hazou / AP Photo
Instead of equating political Islam with al Qaeda all the time, take a closer look. Historically, Islam was hijacked about 20 or 30 years after the Prophet and interpreted in such a way that the ruler has absolute power and is accountable only to God. That, of course, was a very convenient interpretation for whoever was the ruler. Only a few weeks ago, the leader of a group of ultra-conservative Muslims in Egypt issued a fatwa, or religious edict, calling for me to “repent” for inciting public opposition to President Hosni Mubarak, and declaring the ruler has a right to kill me, if I do not desist. This sort of thing moves us toward the dark ages. But did we hear a single word of protest or denunciation from the Egyptian government? No.
We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans
Despite all of this, I have hoped to find a way toward change through peaceful means. In a country like Egypt, it’s not easy to get people to put down their names and government ID numbers on a document calling for fundamental democratic reforms, yet a million people have done just that. The regime, like the monkey that sees nothing and hears nothing, simply ignored us.
• Leslie H. Gelb: Obama’s Risky Path in Egypt

• Mike Giglio: Inside Egypt’s Facebook Revolt
As a result, the young people of Egypt have lost patience, and what you’ve seen in the streets these last few days has all been organized by them. I have been out of Egypt because that is the only way I can be heard. I have been totally cut off from the local media when I am there. But I am going back to Cairo, and back onto the streets because, really, there is no choice. You go out there with this massive number of people, and you hope things will not turn ugly, but so far, the regime does not seem to have gotten that message.
Each day it gets harder to work with Mubarak’s government, even for a transition, and for many of the people you talk to in Egypt, that is no longer an option. They think he has been there 30 years, he is 83 years old, and it is time for a change. For them, the only option is a new beginning.
How long this can go on, I don’t know. In Egypt, as in Tunisia, there are other forces than just the president and the people. The army has been quite neutral so far, and I would expect it to remain that way. The soldiers and officers are part of the Egyptian people. They know the frustrations. They want to protect the nation.
But this week the Egyptian people broke the barrier of fear, and once that is broken, there is no stopping them.
Mohamed ElBaradei was awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize along with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, which he headed at the time. Since his retirement at the end of 2009, he has emerged as a political force in his native Egypt. His book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times will be published in June.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
January 26, 2011 | 7:19pm
Comments (59)
Collapse Replies
sort by date:

Dr_SwampGas

That governmnet in Egypt is clearly anything but "stable". In fact, it is showing every sign of internal rot and is not likely to outlast the aging dictator. The main question now is what will come afterwards...

Clearly the attempt to have "elections" that produced Soviet-style results is not satisfactory.
|
|
|
(2)
7:35 pm, Jan 26, 2011

a10drxtc

and that is different from America?? George Bush stole both elections with election fraud first in Florida then second one in Ohio...i think Americans need to stop being so arrogant and practice what we preach and fix our own system first...remember the wise words of Jesus "stop worrying about the splinter in your brothers eye while you have a plank in your own eye"...this is the reason why the world hates America..this is an arrogant people who have a sense of entitlement...we are a greedy and selfish people (just ask any homeless person..i have seen arrogant pompous NYU students suggest to the homeless that they should commit suicide as a solution to their problems)
|
|
|
(2)
9:18 pm, Jan 26, 2011

Dr_SwampGas

I am well aware of our failings as a society. I would only say that if they're going to have a revolution in Egypt then let them get on with it. It's long overdue and no one should stand in its way.
|
10:35 pm, Jan 26, 2011

dbro0009

Daily Beast, why are you ignoring the recently leaked PALESTINE PAPERS. stop being cowards. it is important!
|
10:25 pm, Jan 27, 2011

purenordic

egyptians arise! you have nothing to lose but your chains! americans salute you...even if our government does not.
|
|
1:03 am, Jan 27, 2011

JAGUAR6CY

The simple statement "real stability only comes with a democratically elected government" is not true. Please read "World On Fire" for an objective analysis of this problem.
|
|
|
(1)
8:09 pm, Jan 26, 2011

pjsoft

Thanks for the heads up on "World of Fire." It is available in ebook.
|
|
9:10 pm, Jan 26, 2011

David Turner

This is the same Mohamed ElBaradei who, in addition to being a Nobel laureate was also responsible as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the same ElBaradei under whose careful scrutiny, or was it benign neglect, Iran apparently progressed along the path toward a nuclear weapons program in broad daylight. Now there's a future president of Egypt, already well connected to Iran and Ahmadinejad, flanking Israel, Jordan and the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula!
|
|
|
(2)
8:21 pm, Jan 26, 2011

bigvic

David turner, if nuclear weapon is good for israel why is it bad for iran or don't they have "second amendment" rights.
|
|
|
(2)
12:48 am, Jan 27, 2011

steinind

Are you serious? Comparing the littlest kid in the neighborhood - who has had to defend himself against everyone else around him ever since he showed up - to a nation that scares even those who have tried to gang up on that little guy? Suggesting that a peoples right to defend themselves against the development of tyranny WITHIN their OWN gov't should be the same for a lunatic tyrant who has stated he is itching to begin a conflagration - even if it means the destruction of his own nation!? This needs to be explained to you!?
|
1:30 pm, Jan 27, 2011

bigvic

steinnd, well if that is your point then iran needs the weapon to defend itself from america and its allies cause in this case iran is the little guy.
|
7:38 am, Jan 29, 2011

James38

ElBaradei stated in December 2008 that Iran's nuclear program was legal. He stated that there is no evidence that Iran is building toward nuclear weapons. He has shown no favoritism to Iran, and has made clear statements about the access given to international inspectors. He has no liking for dictatorial regimes anywhere, and is to all evidence an honest man. If we had listened to him when he clearly stated that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and no WMD, instead of believing the lies of Bush/Cheney, how many US and Iranian citizens would still be alive? 

Saddam was a monster, and Ahmadinejad is probably worse, but working subtly for regime change is far better than resorting to war. Unless there is clear evidence that Iran is developing a weapon, diplomacy is the answer.

The whole stupid Iraq war started by Bush/Cheney was a mistake, and ElBaradei tried his best to prevent it. We seriously need world leaders of his quality, and I profoundly hope he will survive his heroic trip to Egypt.
|
|
1:00 am, Jan 27, 2011

Sam Steele

The West has supported "authoritarian" regimes in the Arab World as opposed to "fundamentalist" regimes because it has always been a question of choosing bad and worse. If Mohammed El-Baradei can bring democracy to Egypt, that's great. Everybody wants to see democracy in the Arab World, particularly in Egypt. The problem with El-Baradei is that, as a secularist, he's a dinosaur, regardless of his Nobel Prize. The Arab Street doesn't come across westernized intellectuals like El-Baradei in their day-to-day dealings but Muslim clerics who give voice to their frustrations and preach that Allah is God and Mohammed is God's Prophet. If the Arab urban poor have been to school, chances are they have only been to Koranic madrassahs, where they are taught to memorize the Koran by rote. In his own way, Mohammed El-Baradei is just as out of touch with the people as Hosni Mubarak.
|
|
|
(2)
8:22 pm, Jan 26, 2011

a10drxtc

yeah, Americas definition of democracy is the 51% imposing their views on the 49%...Bush cheated his way to the presidency with just 47.8% of the vote..
|
|
|
(2)
9:22 pm, Jan 26, 2011

dxgmmpa

I believe you have a serious lack of appreciation or understanding of the nature of government by the people for the people. Despite your hatred for Bush he has been gone for two years and you now have what you want. Why are you so unhappy. Be happy and enjoy what you have while it lasts. 2012 is coming and the people will decide on the next government for another 4 years not for life as it is in Egypt and in the other 22 Islamic dictatorships. Let the Egyptian people sort it out. They should get what they want as long as they do not impose on their neighboring countries. This is the major source of world conflict for the last 4000 years. 

America needs to stay out of Egyptian affairs until the people sort out what source of government they want to live under. There in is the real problem. That government may be oppressive to its people and not be friendly to American interests and its neighbors. It also may not be the will of the people. There may be influences by outside dictatorships that want to expand their power. 

God Bless America and the Republic for which it stands. All we have to worry about are the Clintons, Bushes, and the Obamas. Every 4 years we have a chance to correct our mistakes. 
|
3:34 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

What would your solution be to a 51% majority vote then genius?

Cut the country in half with a pair of scissors?
|
3:38 am, Jan 27, 2011

bigvic

sam steele, so the people are too stupid to know what is good for them.
|
|
12:45 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

But... the Muslim brotherhood are waiting in the wings.

The ghost of Sayyid Qutb is stirring.

Do you wonder that the western countries are not eager to see the result of an Egyptian free election?

Look what happened in Algeria. In Iran. In Gaza. In Lebanon?

Many do not share your optimism Mr ElBaradei.
|
|
|
(2)
8:22 pm, Jan 26, 2011

bigvic

so in that case we only support democracy only when it serves our interest.How clever.
|
|
|
(9)
12:43 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

Yes - you only support democracy so long as the people who win don't say they are going to abolish democracy.

It is called a paradox. I suppose you would be happy to see Egypt turn into another Islamo-fascist state.

Yeah you probably wouldn't mind that. That really is clever.
|
3:41 am, Jan 27, 2011

bigvic

T1Brit, unlike you my support for democracy is unconditional.i hardly see any difference between what the islamists do in arab world and what the christain right do over here.
|
10:18 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

bigvic - your support for democracy is not unconditional - it is simplistic and ill-thought out.

One of the great weaknesses of democracy is that under certain conditions the majority can be persuaded to to vote for the enemies of democracy itself.

Therefore Democracy accepts any result - except the abolition of democracy.

A child can understand this - why can't you.
|
12:08 pm, Jan 27, 2011

Jim McDermott

If there hadn't been a west, TI, then we obviously wouldn't be having a discussion about our culpability, would we? If you're suggesting that Egypt et al would have done exactly this without our malign influence, well, you've got me, because I don't do counter history, as it's fantasy. All I can speak to is our real, actual, concrete history in the region. And if you're suggesting that it's a benign one, then you and I read from entirely different texts.
|
1:38 pm, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

Jim - If by 'not blameless' you mean that the west once dominated areas of the middle east - then we are members of a very big club.

They have all been dominating each other since the time of the Hittites.

What is ridiculous is that people like you look back with a tiny lens to the very recent past - see that our great great grandfathers may have once have had colonial authority over a place...

... and for that reason you would have the only great power in the world that represents progress, democracy, freedom of the individual and economic prosperity, sit on it's hands for the rest of time and play no part in the development of the rest of the backward, poor and ignorant world.

It is the philosophy of a cowardly old auntie.
|
1:19 am, Jan 28, 2011

Jim McDermott

Again, TI, you wilfully ignore or misrepresent what I say. Did I even hint we should now take 'our' hands off? NOPE. Precisely because we have form in the region (whether as part of a Big Club or not is irrelevant: culpability isn't diluted by the number of co-offenders), I regard it as our moral responsibility to at least try to put those things right that we've helped to get wrong. And it's because the US lays claim to those virtues you suggest, it has an onerous burden of responsibility that other equally or more culpable nations (I include my own) no longer have the influence to share. At the moment, it's failing in that duty.

And I'd be enormously gratified if you could attempt to respond to at least one post without resorting to rather childish, personal insults. If possible, that is.
|
3:44 am, Jan 28, 2011

T1Brit

Jim, I quote you.

"We collude in crushing people's hopes"

".. had the chance to influence the political life of nations for good, but chose instead to look at only their own, selfish short-term interests "

"Part of being a grown-up is being able to take personal responsibility"

So - 

WE have crushed the hopes of the Egyptians.

WE could have transformed Egypt into a better place but chose not to.

WE are guilty and should face up to it.

This is what you are selling - and it is past it's sell-by date.

Egypt has been totally autonomous since Nasser.

The mess they are in is not our doing, no matter how much you wish it was.
|
6:45 am, Jan 28, 2011

Jim McDermott

As regards Egypt, TI, very wrong. Since the Camp David Accords (ratified 1979), the US has propped up (following Sadat's murder) the increasingly authoritarian regime of Mubarak with billions of dollars - for decades now, Egypt has been the recipient of the 2nd largest annual amount of US aid, after Israel. THAT is collusion, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.
|
7:35 am, Jan 28, 2011

T1Brit

Jim - 
It is true the US has provided a lot of aid.
And the booming Egyptian business class is proof of it.
I will concede that. 
Let us see what replaces Mubarak.
Perhaps then the hard reality of why the US has done so will become clear.

|
2:19 pm, Jan 28, 2011

Jim McDermott

Islamist oppositions thrive precisely because no viable democratic alternatives are offered until it's too late. They thrive under police state persecution (as in the Shah's Iran - could Khomeini have come to power if Mossadegh had been allowed to continue? I doubt it) and they thrive when more moderate groups are damned for being insufficiently compliant (Hamas was the direct beneficiary of Palestinian disillusionment at Israel's continuing humiliation of Arafat and Fatah). We collude in crushing people's hopes and when they turn to the only groups who can offer realistic prospects of change, we throw up our hands and say 'See? Only authoritarianism kept the lid on'.
|
|
|
(3)
1:18 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

It's strangely satisfying isn't it to believe that everything bad in the world is somehow the fault of the United States.

Makes you feel important doesn't it.
|
3:44 am, Jan 27, 2011

Jim McDermott

I'm a Brit, not American, and when I say 'we' I mean, as I think you're perfectly well aware, everyone who had the chance to influence the political life of nations for good, but chose instead to look at only their own, selfish short-term interests. So yes, the US is partly to blame for its consistent support of semi-tyrannical regimes, but so are we Brits, the French and every other post-colonizing nation. Part of being a grown-up is being able to take personal responsibility, don't you think?
|
4:18 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

Jim McDermott - yes I am aware of what you meant - and I should have said 'the west'. It is not just Americans who suffer from the deluded idea that the whole world revolves around them.

I wonder what the current government of Egypt would look like if there had never been any west at all.

Would it have naturally developed into a shining example of a free democratic country - or would the Pharaohs still be in charge.

You would have done a much better job of managing such events as world wars, global economic depressions and cold wars I suppose.

If only 'we' would leave the Egyptians alone. Pull the other one.
|
12:12 pm, Jan 27, 2011

shana707

elBaradei should be shot. It would be best for the Egyptian people.
|
|
|
(1)
8:26 pm, Jan 26, 2011

Dr_SwampGas

Shana, have I told you lately that you are truly vile? You really are.
|
|
10:34 pm, Jan 26, 2011

Deepblack

US please revoke all support to the Egyptian regime.
|
|
8:28 pm, Jan 26, 2011

Bob from Brooklyn

The "simple statement" that "real stability only comes with democratically elected government" is completely true.

If a government is not democratic, it inevitably uses its power to keep on running things, and, when its members brfeak the law, to protect themselves. This crosses ideological, cultural and racial lines. There's not a lot of difference between the machine-politics-run cities of 19th and early-20th century America, on the one hand, and small-town and small-city China, on the other. When a citizen went after one of the autocrats, the autocrats used their power to stop the citizen.
|
|
8:44 pm, Jan 26, 2011

TWBBug

Whoa! This guy is serious.
|
|
9:18 pm, Jan 26, 2011

vidiotz

I'm sorry, this was sent to me as an exclusive in my email, it it headlined as "World News" and it is clearly an editorial by the subject of the headline. This is a misrepresentation in many ways by the Daily Beast and I, for one, am disappointed.

I believe the mans message has value but I believe the Daily Beast is pushing an agenda here. So much for neutrality in the press.
|
|
10:04 pm, Jan 26, 2011

Dr_SwampGas

I don't care what the "realists" say, I am not going to support a "secular" fascist police state out of fear that it might be replaced by a religious fascist police state.
|
|
|
(1)
10:33 pm, Jan 26, 2011

T1Brit

Better to live under NAZIs than Islamo-NAZIs.

Especially if you are female.
|
|
|
(2)
3:46 am, Jan 27, 2011

Dr_SwampGas

Yes, but how many women were shot, gassed, starved and used as slave laborers by the "secular" Nazis in Europe--to say nothing about the Japanese azis out in Asia--although their god was the Emperor Hirohito, of course? I'd say it was in the millions. I don't see how that's worse than the Islamic fascists.


In their defense, at least the German and Japanese Nazis could hear their little tin gods on the radio, by the Islamic nazis only hear theirs in their heads.
|
11:53 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

You can still reason with a secular fascist - there is some common ground.

The Islamists are deranged in their cruelty. 

It is one thing to be shot for resisting the state, but to be stoned to death for being a normal female human being is a step worse in my opinion.
|
12:29 pm, Jan 27, 2011

Osman Amir

"What bothers me about naysayers is that they still speak from the same ideological positions that blinded them to the possibility, if not even inevitability, of revolution," said Syrian poet and democracy activist Ammar Abdulhamid. "They don't see us as complex human beings and societies capable of making calculations, weighing odds and considering where our interests lie, but as caricatures, figures and puppets in the hands of extremists, autocrats, or, at times, their own Western hands."
|
|
12:10 am, Jan 27, 2011

Osman Amir

"What bothers me about naysayers is that they still speak from the same ideological positions that blinded them to the possibility, if not even inevitability, of revolution," said Syrian poet and democracy activist Ammar Abdulhamid. "They don't see us as complex human beings and societies capable of making calculations, weighing odds and considering where our interests lie, but as caricatures, figures and puppets in the hands of extremists, autocrats, or, at times, their own Western hands."
|
|
12:15 am, Jan 27, 2011

purenordic

...and again those who speak for america speak for the s.o.b's who suppress their people while they suckle on the washington teat. the day of reckoning is fast coming for us all over the world. our financiers export bankruptcy, our soldiers are sent globally to subdue and occupy, the government of the free and the brave rewards those who would stamp out their own citizens' freedom. and at home, cash is the only thing that talks. when we wake up, we'll realize we have been living in 1984 since before 1984. will it be too late?
|
|
1:01 am, Jan 27, 2011

dxgmmpa

Maybe someone smarter than me can explain something to me. What the hell is a matter with to people on the middle east. 4000 years of history and they still cannot get it right.

Don't give me this shit that it is America's fault. We have only been around for 400 years.
|
|
|
(2)
3:48 am, Jan 27, 2011

Jim McDermott

Yes, just 400 years, starting with a clean sheet (once the natives had been 'relocated'), and you've still managed to bugger up lots of things. The Middle East has History, alright. The region's been coveted by everyone who's passed through it. Even our own Holy Scriptures are basically a self-serving justification of the actions of one in a whole series of marauders. What we have today are the consequences of this layer-cake of crap
|
|
5:20 am, Jan 27, 2011

T1Brit

Jim McDermott - you don't know your history. You are quoting from the back of a cereal packet.

The middle east was largely christian after the departure of the Romans - for hundreds of years - until the muslims conquered it by fire and the sword.

The crusades were an attempt to liberate the christian lands from this domination. 

Then the region spent the centuries up to world war one under the boot of the Turkish empire.

In the 20th century the 'marauders' you speak of came to drill oil wells and make the saudis the richest human beings ever to walk the face of the planet.

Get a better cereal packet before you make such farcical statements.
|
|
|
(5)
12:19 pm, Jan 27, 2011

Jim McDermott

Thanks, TI. As a professional historian, I enjoy being patronized by someone who's had access to the Bumper Boys' Book of History. Your somewhat rudimentary overview reflects, I suppose, the maximum amount of information your brain could absorb on this intricate subject. Still, what you did manage to get right doesn't in any way contradict my previous post, though your acute selectivity (ignoring the many internal religious & dynastic upheavals in each of these periods and also the failed but massive incursions of the Sassanids and Mongols) did rather underplay the region's problems.

If only you'd taken your own understanding of the subject from a source as sophisticated as a cereal packet.
|
1:49 am, Jan 28, 2011

T1Brit

Jim - 
If you can point to a single inaccuracy in what I wrote above, please do.
Brevity is the soul of wit, and messageboards.
I am aware of the invasions of Persians, Mongols, etc.
It changes what I am saying not one fraction.
The place is and has been rife with problems with or without western influence since the beginning of recorded history.

The only nations in the world that are interested in helping democracy to flourish in the region are western ones.

As usual.
|
6:51 am, Jan 28, 2011

Jim McDermott

I didn't say that your response was inaccurate, TI; just that, apart from being gratuitously insulting, it did not in any way contradict the statement to which it responded
|
7:37 am, Jan 28, 2011

T1Brit

" our own Holy Scriptures are basically a self-serving justification of the actions of one in a whole series of marauders "

I regard that statement as 'gratuitously insulting' - on behalf of the entire western world, Jim.
|
2:22 pm, Jan 28, 2011

Jim McDermott

TI, you don't, and can't, speak on behalf of the Western World, you pompous so and so. Not even for that tiny minority who take their Old Testament literally.
|
12:57 am, Jan 29, 2011

Geen opmerkingen: