Tunisia's "Ennahda" Party and the Egyptian MB: Still a bunch of racist totalitarians.

[regexcellent]

I'm sure the democrats are upset about the fact that he was not nominated, yes.

[Hauldren Collider]

no it isn't. it was a state run by the military, and now it's a...err...state run by the military.

With mass killings of Coptics, huge drops in tourism and saber-rattling with their neighbor and former ally. Definitely better off for that. Most definitely.

however now at least, there have been elections and the people have expressed their view about who they would like to govern them. there is also a chance now of real change and movement towards a more democratic society, or at least, a society closer to what the egyptian population aspires to.

Yes, they aspire for a christian- and jew-free middle east. More power to them!

[C0ckney]

reading is fundamental HC.

[Zevico]

Yep, one of the downsides of promoting democracy around the globe. They get to choose how they want to be ruled, we don't.
We either respect it or we're hypocrites.

Or we realise that democracy is not mob rule, and that Islamist rule in Egypt could be dangerous to the Middle East and act accordingly. Those who mouth democratic principles and call on their people to kill those who disagree with their politics are demogagues and tyrants, not democrats. This is not a matter of hypocrisy, it is a matter of level-headed analysis. We must identify who it is we're dealing with in Egypt and what to do about them. If they're anti-Western, opppose them. If they're pro-Western, support them. That's a good starting point.

Leaving them alone, as Mad Monk suggests, simply risks damage to the long-term stability of the region, and therefore to the economic and security interests of Western countries; to say the least..

[dannubis]

Those who mouth democratic principles and call on their people to kill those who disagree with their politics are demogagues and tyrants, not democrats.

Just quoting for future reference... So many uses.

[C0ckney]

zevico, that is exactly the sort of mealy mouthed crap that you constantly spout.

when you say 'dangerous to the middle east' you mean 'dangerous to israel'. when you say 'damnage...the long term stability of the region' you mean 'damage israeli foreign policy'. when you say 'the economic and security interests of western countries' you mean 'the economic and security interests of israel'.

not only are you wrong, you're not even honest enough to say what you really mean.

[regexcellent]

Zevico's got it spot on, as usual

Stuff that's dangerous to Israel is dangerous to the Middle East. If conflict breaks out again Israel isn't the only country that will suffer; in fact if Israel went to war with Egypt again (which is looking more and more likely) Egypt would suffer the most since Israel would probably roflstomp it as usual. It would be yet another needless waste of life for both sides.

[Fake Boris]

As pointed out by Cockney just one post above, what is dangerous for Arab countries is dangerous for Israel.

[regexcellent]

Actually he was saying that Zevico was being disingenuous when he claimed things were bad for the middle east.

[Fake Boris]

Then you claimed he wasn't really, with an equally disingenuous argument.

[C0ckney]

Actually he was saying that Zevico was being disingenuous when he claimed things were bad for the middle east.

no. in fact i claimed that zervico is wrong in what he says and he is also being dishonest in making his wrong arguments.

[Zevico]

zevico, that is exactly the sort of mealy mouthed crap that you constantly spout.

when you say 'dangerous to the middle east' you mean 'dangerous to israel'. when you say 'damnage...the long term stability of the region' you mean 'damage israeli foreign policy'. when you say 'the economic and security interests of western countries' you mean 'the economic and security interests of israel'.

not only are you wrong, you're not even honest enough to say what you really mean.

So you're accusing me of "not being honest enough to say what [I] really mean." Tell me, Cockney. When did you gain the necessary mind-reading skills to find out "what I really mean" but have never said? I don't have to employ mind-reading to figure out that when someone tells me that "all I care about is Israel", when I've never written nor suggested as much, is engaging in projection.

[Barnabas]

The only time Democracy appears in the Bible is when the crowd chooses to save Barabbas instead of Jesus

[C0ckney]

So you're accusing me of "not being honest enough to say what [I] really mean." Tell me, Cockney. When did you gain the necessary mind-reading skills to find out "what I really mean" but have never said? I don't have to employ mind-reading to figure out that when someone tells me that "all I care about is Israel", when I've never written nor suggested as much, is engaging in projection.

i don't need physic powers to see through you.

practically every article you post, talks about jews, israel and how those nasty muslims don't like them. whether they're supposedly talking about the tunisian revolution or problems in eygpt they'll trot out some quote or remark about israel and then spend lots of time hand wringing and saying how dangerous these awful new muslim politicians are (and by implication how much better the old repressive dictators were). the first article you posted in this thread, is purportedly about tunisa, yet most of the time is spent talking about jews and israel. the right wing imbeciles from whom you take your opinions see the arab spring and frankly the whole middle east through israeli eyes.

it's clear and obvious, the least you could do is to be honest about it.

[Zevico]

the right wing imbeciles from whom you take your opinions see the arab spring and frankly the whole middle east through israeli eyes.

Through Israeli eyes? What does this even mean? None of these commentaries are some essential aspect of Israeli identity. There are many Israelis who would probably agree with your views on the Arab Spring. They are no less or more Israeli for it. The same applies to persons of any other nationality. The error here is essentialism: only an Israeli can think like this, ergo this must be from an Israeli point of view. And those Israelis who disagree, well, they are not real Israelis. And those foreigners who agree, well, they must be Israelis. All true scotsmen like haggis, and the scotsmen who dislike it are not true scotsmen at all. And anyone who likes haggis must be a scotsman. So what am I then? An "essentially" Israeli person, notwithstanding my protestations to the contrary? I am what you make of me? A strange assertion.