Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Yes, that is the way this is being portrayed...the Mursi government was not sufficiently inclusive of minority views so the military has intervened on behalf of "the people". That is easily and comfortably embraced by all of us from "the west" watching from the outside, and certainly makes a good storyline for the media.

However, it requires 1) adopting the implausible position that an inclusive, secular form of government is even possible in an increasingly conservative Muslim majority Middle East region; and 2) adopting the even more implausible position that the Egyptian military has suddenly become the defender of inclusive, secular democratic government of the form with which we are familiar.

There is no such thing as "secular Islam". There is no separation of religion and State...they are intimately intertwined even in the most "moderate" interpretations of the Quran. That is a concept that seems to elude many western journalists, who are trying to explain these events to us...

if erdogan were less assertive of islamist values re, e.g., alcohol at outdoor cafes, birth control, etc, would turkey not be an example of an inclusive, secular gov't with islamist characteristics? certainly, it was not necessary for him to be quite as assertive and controlling as he has become in recent years.
and if you believe that the egyptian army is intervening solely because it saw mursi and the brotherhood becoming too powerful as an alternative power center to the army itself, then if mursi were more inclusive, sharing more authority with parties and people with other values than his own, he and the brotherhood would, in fact, be less powerful and therefore less of a threat to the military's power.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I wonder if there's a stronger comparison to be made between Egypt/Pakistan or even Egypt/Iran rather than Egypt/Turkey in regards to the role of the military in politics and the economy?

As I understand it, Egypt's, Pakistan's, and Iran's militaries possess quite outsized economic power in the form of businesses owned by their respective pension funds, government owned defense industry, and/or usurped economic power.

In all three countries, their senior military leadership tend to retire and shift towards owned/controlled industry(and not just defense industry).

Turkey seems to have a bit of this in their quite advanced and substantial defense industry, but the Turkish military's economic influence seems to be getting it's financial fangs removed:

http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist...-industry.html

Meanwhile, in Egypt(and as GRG55 mentioned) Al Jazeera claims the Egyptian military controls 15%-40% of the economy:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...912519142.html

In Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Council(IRGC) likely possess a similar level of control over Iranian GDP:

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.ph...rt-1&Itemid=32

In Pakistan, the Pakistani military may control approximately 7% of private assets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...books.pakistan

So I'm thinking Turkey is in a different league than Egypt/Iran/Pakistan in that regard(military influence and control over politics/economy).

Turkey's military appears to have been politically and economically neutered, whereas Egypt's, Iran's, and Pakistan's clearly have not.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

There is no such thing as "secular Islam". There is no separation of religion and State...they are intimately intertwined even in the most "moderate" interpretations of the Quran. That is a concept that seems to elude many western journalists, who are trying to explain these events to us...

While the Koran does not make any specific reference to separation between church and state - hence the above statement being correct - at the same time it is very difficult to define what exactly a proper Muslim government is.

Outside of Iran - and even in Iran, officially the mechanism of state is not entirely that of Islam - there are no theocracies. Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy, Qatar isn't a theocracy, etc etc.

Furthermore, what exactly constitutes the Muslim Church? Unlike Catholicism, which has a hierarchical top down system, Islam doesn't have a Pope. It doesn't even have bishops. What it has, is a loose system where any particularly charismatic religious leader can achieve a following, but whom has no ability to govern other religious leaders. The Sunni version is most closely described this way.

The Shiite version is also worthy of consideration with respect to the 'separation of church and state'. While the Shiites have a more Catholic-style hierarchy, at the same time doesn't the Shiite version explicitly say that the state is explicitly corrupt, thus Shiite clerics should steer clear of it? Where are the Shiite states ruled by Shiite clerics? Even in Shiite Iran - while one or more ayatollahs appears to hold power, it is quite amorphous as to who is the head of that nation.

I'd also point out that there aren't even Muslim examples like the past English monarchy - where the head of the State of England was also the head of the Anglican church.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

if erdogan were less assertive of islamist values re, e.g., alcohol at outdoor cafes, birth control, etc, would turkey not be an example of an inclusive, secular gov't with islamist characteristics? certainly, it was not necessary for him to be quite as assertive and controlling as he has become in recent years...

Many of Erdogan's policies have broad support among conservative and liberal alike, including allowing women to wear the hijab in the workplace.

I have wondered if one of the questions that Erdogan, and other Muslim leaders in similar situation, have been asking themselves is what constitutes a nation with "Islamic characteristics"? Clearly it must be something more than the fact that (some) people go to a mosque to pray on a Friday, instead of to a synagogue to pray on a Saturday or to a church to pray on a Sunday. But what exactly?

In our society we introduce laws and bylaws to control what is deemed to be "undesirable"...everything from restrictions on the sale of tobacco to controlling what can be displayed on outdoor advertising billboards, and which public places alcohol may or may not be consumed. We don't generally associate the reason for creating any of these with the tenets of any particular religion.

But Islam prescribes behavior patterns for much of everyday life and trying to follow the rule of God, which can never be subordinated to the rule of man, is the essence of being Muslim. If we consider Erdogan's recent alcohol restrictions, as one example, those could legitimately be viewed as nothing more than the enforcement of one of the more visible and well known characteristics that define an Islamic society.

I have a theory that the hostility that was displayed towards Turkey by more than a few prominent European politicians during the last round of EU accession discussions starting in 2005 created a sense of rejection by the West among Turks who already felt alienated from their own government (a common circumstance in the Middle East). This combination often manifests as a rejection of "western values" and a total commitment to traditional Islamic values, and I think it is this growing constituency the Erdogan government (and others in the region) are increasingly trying to embrace into their fold.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

While the Koran does not make any specific reference to separation between church and state - hence the above statement being correct - at the same time it is very difficult to define what exactly a proper Muslim government is.

Outside of Iran - and even in Iran, officially the mechanism of state is not entirely that of Islam - there are no theocracies. Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy, Qatar isn't a theocracy, etc etc.

Furthermore, what exactly constitutes the Muslim Church? Unlike Catholicism, which has a hierarchical top down system, Islam doesn't have a Pope. It doesn't even have bishops. What it has, is a loose system where any particularly charismatic religious leader can achieve a following, but whom has no ability to govern other religious leaders. The Sunni version is most closely described this way.

The Shiite version is also worthy of consideration with respect to the 'separation of church and state'. While the Shiites have a more Catholic-style hierarchy, at the same time doesn't the Shiite version explicitly say that the state is explicitly corrupt, thus Shiite clerics should steer clear of it? Where are the Shiite states ruled by Shiite clerics? Even in Shiite Iran - while one or more ayatollahs appears to hold power, it is quite amorphous as to who is the head of that nation.

I'd also point out that there aren't even Muslim examples like the past English monarchy - where the head of the State of England was also the head of the Anglican church.

What is the primary purpose of a government? Sometimes we refer to our representatives as "law makers", and this includes our heads of State (Monarchs or otherwise) who have an integral role in our governance and law making processes.

Islamic doctrines are based on the revelations of God to his last Prophet, Muhammad (PBUH), and preserved in the holy book, the Qur'an. Faith is more than a religion...it is a way of life including politics, law and social behavior. For Muslims their Scriptures are the completion and perfection of the previous revelations to the prophets of Judaism and Christianity...for Arab Muslims the "Will of Allah". Unlike Christianity, Islam does not recognize the concept of intercession between God and man. Hence, for any devout Muslim a government or monarch creating man-made laws, a head of state or even the state itself, or a "Church" with a hierarchy of authority created by men (unlike the Shi'a imams chosen by God or the Sunni imams who lead only through the respect of the community) are all unnecessary, artificial and illegitimate (how legitimate, in the eyes of the faithful, is King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Saud, who is older than the Kingdom over which he presides with considerable western propping?)

A "secular Islamic state" can only exist in the minds of non-Muslims.

[reggie]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Don- or anybody who believes in the "destabilization-for-oil" theory- I'm not saying you're wrong, but I just don't see what destabilization accomplishes as a policy and in fact. Everybody says we're destabilizing regimes for their oil, but is the USA really getting a lot of oil out of all this? After years of US presence in Iraq, Iraq signed big oil contracts with China a few years ago.

Can someone please enlighten me on how exactly the US is benefiting from fighting in the Middle East? The only advantages I can see is it's enriching the pockets of the war industry and keeping thousands of young men busy over there instead of having them unemployed on the streets here at home. Is this what it's all about?

Fighting is to conquer oil reserves in order to shut them down. We're migrating globally to energy systems that will ONLY support a small human footprint, and oil can not be part of that equation.

With respect to the Middle East, not only is the above objective a priority, but it is also a priority to ponerize the muslim culture thru the western culture machine. I mean, we can't have a rational system based upon RAND's Game Theory when the culture still embraces basic human values. We can't have humanity interfering with rationality now, can we, 'cause that screws up all of those NSA models the guys in Happy valley spend their careers developing.

What is the primary purpose of a government? Sometimes we refer to our representatives as "law makers", and this includes our heads of State (Monarchs or otherwise) who have an integral role in our governance and law making processes.

Islamic doctrines are based on the revelations of God to his last Prophet, Muhammad (PBUH), and preserved in the holy book, the Qur'an. Faith is more than a religion...it is a way of life including politics, law and social behavior. For Muslims their Scriptures are the completion and perfection of the previous revelations to the prophets of Judaism and Christianity...for Arab Muslims the "Will of Allah". Unlike Christianity, Islam does not recognize the concept of intercession between God and man. Hence, for any devout Muslim a government or monarch creating man-made laws, a head of state or even the state itself, or a "Church" with a hierarchy of authority created by men (unlike the Shi'a imams chosen by God or the Sunni imams who lead only through the respect of the community) are all unnecessary, artificial and illegitimate (how legitimate, in the eyes of the faithful, is King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Saud, who is older than the Kingdom over which he presides with considerable western propping?)

A "secular Islamic state" can only exist in the minds of non-Muslims.

Yup, that kinda system can't exist in a cold rational world. It's gotta be destroyed.

This is not just genocide of humans, this is total erasure of a way of life globally. You gotta think really really big when trying to understand these think tank punks.

on a related note . . .

Chávez Returns, Saying Cancer Not Found

disappointing news for those seeking to co-op Venezuela's oil reserves

But Hugo is such a great CIA employee. He plays his role fabulously. C'mon, you didn't think we'd allow anyone that matters to self-rule, even if we must direct them into the antagonist role.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

grg, what is your view of turkey over the last decade? and of indonesia?

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/07/israels-reviled-strategic-wisd.php
Israel's reviled strategic wisdom Caroline B. Glick July 5, 2013, 2:58 AM On Wednesday, Egypt had its second revolution in as many years. And there is no telling how many more revolutions it will have in the coming months, or years. This is the case not only in Egypt, but throughout the Islamic world. The American foreign policy establishment's rush to romanticize as the Arab Spring the political instability that engulfed the Arab world following the self-immolation of a Tunisian peddler in December 2010 was perhaps the greatest demonstration ever given of the members of that establishment's utter cluelessness about the nature of Arab politics and society. Their enthusiastic embrace of protesters who have now brought down President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood regime indicates that it takes more than a complete repudiation of their core assumptions to convince them to abandon them. US reporters and commentators today portray this week's protests as the restoration of the Egyptian revolution. That revolution, they remain convinced, was poised to replace long-time Egyptian leader and US-ally Hosni Mubarak with a liberal democratic government led by people who used Facebook and Twitter. Subsequently, we were told, that revolution was hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. But now that Morsi and his government have been overthrown, the Facebook revolution is back on track. And again, they are wrong. As was the case in 2011, the voices of liberal democracy in Egypt are so few and far between that they have no chance whatsoever of gaining power, today or for the foreseeable future. At this point it is hard to know what the balance of power is between the Islamists who won 74 percent of the vote in the 2011 parliamentary elections and their opponents. But it is clear that their opponents are not liberal democrats. They are a mix of neo-Nasserist fascists, communists and other not particularly palatable groups. None of them share Western conceptions of freedom and limited government. None of them are particularly pro-American. None of them like Jews. And none of them support maintaining Egypt's cold peace with Israel. Egypt's greatest modern leader was Gamal Abdel Nasser. By many accounts the most common political view of the anti-Muslim Brotherhood protesters is neo-Nasserist fascism. Nasser was an enemy of the West. He led Egypt into the Soviet camp in the 1950s. As the co-founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, he also led much of the Third World into the Soviet camp. Nasser did no less damage to the US in his time than al-Qaida and its allies have done in recent years. Certainly, from Israel's perspective, Nasser was no better than Hamas or al-Qaida or their parent Muslim Brotherhood movement. Like the Islamic fanatics, Nasser sought the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of the Jews. Whether the fascists will take charge or not is impossible to know. So, too, the role of the Egyptian military in the future of Egypt is unknowable. The same military that overthrew Morsi on Wednesday stood by as he earlier sought to strip its powers, sacked its leaders and took steps to transform it into a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood. There are only three things that are knowable about the future of Egypt. First it will be poor. Egypt is a failed state. It cannot feed its people. It has failed to educate its people. It has no private sector to speak of. It has no foreign investment. Second, Egypt will be politically unstable. Mubarak was able to maintain power for 29 years because he ran a police state that the people feared. That fear was dissipated in 2011. This absence of fear will bring Egyptians to the street to topple any government they feel is failing to deliver on its promises - as they did this week. Given Egypt's dire economic plight, it is impossible to see how any government will be able to deliver on any promises - large or small - that its politicians will make during electoral campaigns. And so government after government will share the fates of Mubarak and Morsi. Beyond economic deprivation, today tens of millions of Egyptians feel they were unlawfully and unjustly ousted from power on Wednesday. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists won big in elections hailed as free by the West. They have millions of supporters who are just as fanatical today as they were last week. They will not go gently into that good night. Finally, given the utter irrelevance of liberal democratic forces in Egypt today, it is clear enough that whoever is able to rise to power in the coming years will be anti-American, anti- Israel and anti-democratic, (in the liberal democratic sense of the word). They might be nicer to the Copts than the Muslim Brotherhood has been. But they won't be more pro-Western. They may be more cautious in asserting or implementing their ideology in their foreign policy than the Muslim Brotherhood. But that won't necessarily make them more supportive of American interests or to the endurance of Egypt's formal treaty of peace with Israel. And this is not the case only in Egypt. It is the case in every Arab state that is now or will soon be suffering from instability that has caused coups, Islamic takeovers, civil wars, mass protests and political insecurity in country after country. Not all of them are broke. But then again, none of them have the same strong sense of national identity that Egyptians share. Now that we understand what we are likely to see in the coming months and years, and what we are seeing today, we must consider how the West should respond to these events. To do so, we need to consider how various parties responded to the events of the past two-and-ahalf years. Wednesday's overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government is a total repudiation of the US strategy of viewing the unrest in Egypt - and throughout the Arab world - as a struggle between the good guys and the bad guys. Within a week of the start of the protests in Tahrir Square on January 25, 2011, Americans from both sides of the political divide united around the call for Mubarak's swift overthrow. A few days later, President Barack Obama joined the chorus of Democrats and Republicans, and called for Mubarak to leave office, immediately. Everyone from Sen. John McCain to Samantha Power was certain that despite the fact that Mubarak was a loyal ally of the US, America would be better served by supporting the rise of the Facebook revolutionaries who used Twitter and held placards depicting Mubarak as a Jew. Everyone was certain that the Muslim Brotherhood would stay true to its word and keep out of politics. Two days after Mubarak was forced from office, Peter Beinart wrote a column titled "America's Proud Egypt Moment," where he congratulated the neo-conservatives and the liberals and Obama for scorning American interests and siding with the protesters who opposed all of Mubarak's pro-American policies. Beinart wrote exultantly, "Hosni Mubarak's regime was the foundation stone - along with Israel and Saudi Arabia - of American power in the Middle East. It tortured suspected al- Qaida terrorists for us, pressured the Palestinians for us, and did its best to contain Iran. And it sat atop a population eager - secular and Islamist alike - not only to reverse those policies, but to rid the Middle East of American power. And yet we cast our lot with that population, not their ruler." Beinart also congratulated the neo-conservatives for parting ways with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who counseled caution, and so proved they do not suffer from dual loyalty. That hated, reviled Israeli strategy, (which was not Netanyahu's alone, but shared by Israelis from across the political spectrum in a rare demonstration of unanimity), was proven correct by events of the past week and indeed by events of the past two-and-a-half years. Israelis watched in shock and horror as their American friends followed the Pied Piper of the phony Arab Spring over the policy cliff. Mubarak was a dictator. But his opponents were no Alexander Dubceks. There was no reason to throw away 30 years of stability before figuring out a way to ride the tiger that would follow it. Certainly there was no reason to actively support Mubarak's overthrow. Shortly after Mubarak was overthrown, the Obama administration began actively supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood believed that the way to gain and then consolidate power was to hold elections as quickly as possible. Others wanted to wait until a constitutional convention convened and a new blueprint for Egyptian governance was written. But the Muslim Brotherhood would have none of it. And Obama supported it. Five months after elections of questionable pedigree catapulted Morsi to power, Obama was silent when in December 2012 Morsi arrogated dictatorial powers and pushed through a Muslim Brotherhood constitution. Obama ignored Congress three times and maintained full funding of Egypt despite the fact that the Morsi government had abandoned its democratic and pluralistic protestations. He was silent over the past year as the demonstrators assembled to oppose Morsi's power grabs. He was unmoved as churches were torched and Christians were massacred. He was silent as Morsi courted Iran. US Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson and Obama remained the Muslim Brotherhood's greatest champions as the forces began to gather ahead of this week's mass protests. Patterson met with the Coptic pope and told him to keep the Coptic Christians out of the protests. Obama, so quick to call for Mubarak to step down, called for the protesters to exercise restraint this time around and then ignored them during his vacation in Africa. The first time Obama threatened to curtail US funding of the Egyptian military was Wednesday night, after the military ignored American warnings and entreaties, and deposed Morsi and his government. This week's events showed how the US's strategy in Egypt has harmed America. In 2011, the military acted to force Mubarak from power only after Obama called for it to do so. This week, the military overthrew Morsi and began rounding up his supporters in defiance of the White House. Secretary of State John Kerry was the personification of the incredible shrinkage of America this week as he maintained his obsessive focus on getting Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians. In a Middle East engulfed by civil war, revolution and chronic instability, Israel is the only country at peace. The image of Kerry extolling his success in "narrowing the gaps" between Israel and the Palestinians before he boarded his airplane at Ben-Gurion Airport, as millions assembled to bring down the government of Egypt, is the image of a small, irrelevant America. And as the anti-American posters in Tahrir Square this week showed, America's self-induced smallness is a tragedy that will harm the region and endanger the US. As far as Israel is concerned, all we can do is continue what we have been doing, and hope that at some point, the Americans will embrace our sound strategy. _________________

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

http://www.debka.com/article/23098/E...-first-attacks

Egyptian, Israeli military alerts prompted by Islamist mutiny threat from Sinai and first attacks DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 5, 2013, 6:29 PM (IDT) A new Egyptian crisis arena: the Egyptian and Israeli armies Friday, July 5, raised their alert levels on either side of the Sinai border after the Muslim Brotherhood declared Sinai its center of revolt and revenge for the Egyptian army’s ouster of Mohamed Morsi as president Wednesday, July 3. Following a multiple Islamist attack in northern Sinai, the Egyptian army went on high alert in the Suez and North Sinai provinces. The Sinai border crossings to the Gaza Strip and Israel were closed. The army spokesman in Cairo denied declaring an emergency – only a heightened alert. Israel has imposed a blackout on news from this tense region, but debkafile reports reinforcements were sent in Friday to boost the IDF units standing ready along the Egyptian border. Egyptian forces also shut down all three underground passages running from the mainland to Sinai under the Suez Canal. Egypt’s Third Army was deployed to secure them, under the command of Maj. Gen. Osama Askar. Further measures imposed for guarding Suez Canal cargo and oil shipping against possible rocket fire from central Sinai included the stationing along its banks of Patriot anti-missile batteries and anti-air weapons systems, according to debkafile’s military sources. Around one-third of the world’s oil supplies from the Persian Gulf pass through the Suez Canal on their way to the Mediterranean and Europe. These emergency measures were clamped down Friday after the Muslim Brotherhood established a Sinai "War Council" to mount a rebellion against the army in collaboration with the radical Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami as well as the al Qaeda-linked Salafist groups in the Gaza Strip and Sinai. The ousted Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is seen by intelligence sources as designed to transform the Sinai Peninsula into an area of revolt and a base for attacking Israel. They are counting on the army having its hands too full with maintaining security in the mainland cities of Cairo, Alexandria and the Nile Delta to have troops to spare for Sinai. They intend to demonstrate that the military are incapable of at one and the same time fighting the Egyptian people, defending Western shipping in the Canal and Gulf of Suez and preventing attacks on Israel. The new Sinai War Council set up by Morsi’s followers released a video tape threatening that “rebel’ forces would target any army and police personnel found in Sinai in retribution for the military coup. debkafile’s military sources also report that Maj. Gen Ahmad Wasfi, head of the Egyptian Second Army, said after an emergency meeting at the headquarters of Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah El-Sisi Friday that the Egyptian army “would use force to prevent the creation of an Islamic caliphate in Sinai.” The new Islamist coalition launched its “revolt” Thursday night, July 4, by firing a couple of Grad rockets at Eilat. They exploded harmlessly outside Israel’s southernmost town. Israel’s military spokesman has drawn a curtain of secrecy of the event. However, the IDF’s Adom Brigade and its three sub-units, along with the Gaza division, were known to have been placed on high alert. The Islamist Sinai War Council struck again Friday morning, with a multiple attack by Salafist gunmen associated with Hamas and Jihad Islami in northern Sinai. They fired rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and heavy machine guns at Egyptian military intelligence headquarters in northern in Rafah and El Arish airport as well as several Egyptian military and border guard facilities. Our sources report they attacked in wave after wave, the gunmen shooting from heavy machine guns and rocket launchers mounted on minivan as they raced around. Army helicopter gun ships were finally brought in to halt the assault. No word on casualties or the scale of episode has been released.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

What is the primary purpose of a government? Sometimes we refer to our representatives as "law makers", and this includes our heads of State (Monarchs or otherwise) who have an integral role in our governance and law making processes.

Islamic doctrines are based on the revelations of God to his last Prophet, Muhammad (PBUH), and preserved in the holy book, the Qur'an. Faith is more than a religion...it is a way of life including politics, law and social behavior. For Muslims their Scriptures are the completion and perfection of the previous revelations to the prophets of Judaism and Christianity...for Arab Muslims the "Will of Allah". Unlike Christianity, Islam does not recognize the concept of intercession between God and man. Hence, for any devout Muslim a government or monarch creating man-made laws, a head of state or even the state itself, or a "Church" with a hierarchy of authority created by men (unlike the Shi'a imams chosen by God or the Sunni imams who lead only through the respect of the community) are all unnecessary, artificial and illegitimate (how legitimate, in the eyes of the faithful, is King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz bin Saud, who is older than the Kingdom over which he presides with considerable western propping?)

A "secular Islamic state" can only exist in the minds of non-Muslims.

I don't disagree with what you write above. The problem is that Islam doesn't have an agreed upon way to define what the Will of Allah is. And given that the Koran was written centuries ago, the ability of that sacred document to directly translate into modern society is difficult at best.

Thus while any state with a predominant (or politically dominant) Muslim population cannot be 'secular' in a strict interpretation of the word, it is equally false to assume that this 'lack of secularism' equals theocracy. Those pesky people in power seem to have vastly different views on what the 'word' is.

Thus trying to apply Western concepts like 'separation of church and state' to Islam is like describing abstract art to a blind deaf mute. Ultimately really is going on, is a exercise of power cloaked by religion.

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I hope somebody is taking notes so we North Americans will learn how to protest properly when our turn comes ...

Egyptian protest.jpg

[lektrode]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

whoa... thats pretty freaky, eh?
imagine whats running thru the heads of the guys in the choppers...
thanks for posting, always appreciate images that show US a more realistic view of whats really going on in The Street over there.

[reggie]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I hope somebody is taking notes so we North Americans will learn how to protest properly when our turn comes ...

Interesting. But once at that stage the public have lost all hope.

The public is far better off tiurning-offf their TV sets and the social media useage. Otherwise, the public is the problem.

[Woodsman]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Otherwise, the public is the problem.

Reminds me of an old Carlin routine:

"This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public."
http://youtu.be/9etoocgcWm8

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Interesting. But once at that stage the public have lost all hope.

The public is far better off tiurning-offf their TV sets and the social media useage. Otherwise, the public is the problem.

I am stunned at the level of rage I'm seeing from normally rational and intelligence people I respect when it comes to the Martin/Zimmerman case.

My frustration with it revolves entirely around the intentional use of the case to distract and divide the public.

And the public is letting them do it.

I wonder how much coverage the case received from non advertiser supported but paid/impartial news outlets?

Anywho......I don't want to take this off topic.