IS THIS BLOG ON?
This doesn’t bode well. It was a wonderful revolution on Tahrir square. But THAT was a fantasy.
Fortunately, these folks don’t appear to be having much of a direct impact in the election. The Muslim Brotherhood is the big winner. So, the pyramids are safe, I guess.
Barry Rubin explains the difference between the “more radical” Salafists and the MB. They both want to transform Egypt into a radical state run by Sharia, but the achievement of that goal differs in “timing and tactics.”
Not so good …While Obama golfs (for the 90th time of his presidency, 32nd for 2011), in Egypt –
Almost 80 percent of Egyptian Muslims in nine provinces voted for radical Islamist parties in the second round of Egypt’s election. Roughly 5 percent voted for a moderate Islamic party and about 15 percent voted for liberal parties.The “liberal” Wafd party got 1 million votes, but even they are not – as Whoopi would say – “Liberal- liberal”.
Incidentally, the vice-chairman of the Wafd said in an interview last July that the U.S. government carried out the September 11 attacks and Anne Frank’s diary was a fake. At least he doesn’t like Iran, though he thinks it is right about the Holocaust being phony. And he’s the liberal.Interesting reading here from the Sandmonkey.
This doesn’t bode well. It was a wonderful revolution on Tahrir square. But THAT was a fantasy.
Actually, Tahrir was the seed that brought the plant of revolutionary Islamist authoritarianism. (I’ll keep the word totalitarianism for later on, when it might be needed.) The liberals were a tiny minority who in their combination of hope and arrogance thought that they were something powerful in the country. Meanwhile, the Islamists used the liberals as cover to climb into power. They were on their good behavior for strategic reasons.And what does the future hold for Egypt, should Islamists take control?Getting rid of the pyramids?:
For now members of the Nour (The Light) Salafist party, which won 20 per cent of the vote in recent elections, are talking about putting an end to the ‘idolatry’ represented by the pyramids.More radical elements are … frightening:
This means destruction – along the lines essayed by the Afghan Taliban who blew up the Banyam Buddhas – or ‘concealment’ by covering them with wax. Tourists would presumably see great blobs rather than the perfectly carved steps.
Among the many assertions made by the senior Islamic leader was that the Egyptian pyramids need to be closed down to tourists.Read more: ‘Exterminate Christians, close pyramids, Sphinx’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=339305#ixzz1hkBawESf
“There will be tourism for purposes of [medical] treatment, but the tourism sites of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh will be shut down, because my task is to get people to serve Allah rather than people. No proud Muslim will ever be willing to live off tourism profits, because the tourists come to drink alcohol and fornicate. [If they] want to come, they must comply with the conditions and laws of Islam. We will explain to them that, according to the Shariah, the pyramids are [from] a pagan and polytheistic age.”
He continued with a description of the new state of arts and culture in Egypt, should he be in power.
“In Islam, there is no such thing as art. Painting, singing, and dancing are forbidden. Therefore, in the state there will be nothing but Islamic culture, for I cannot teach the infidel culture. … We will return to the decent culture of the Muslims and the Muslim forefathers, and to Islamic history,” he said.
Fortunately, these folks don’t appear to be having much of a direct impact in the election. The Muslim Brotherhood is the big winner. So, the pyramids are safe, I guess.
Barry Rubin explains the difference between the “more radical” Salafists and the MB. They both want to transform Egypt into a radical state run by Sharia, but the achievement of that goal differs in “timing and tactics.”
Brotherhood leaders understand the disadvantages of going for power quickly. It will be more likely to lead to a clash with the army; the economy would suffer due to a loss of investment and loans. Indeed, Egypt is headed for a serious economic crash and the Brotherhood does not want to be in charge at the moment when that happens.So what does the fourth best president of the United States do? Obama’s approach to foreign policy is illustrated by his kindergarten “I’ll keep extending my hand, until they unclench their fist” philosophy. His “be nice”, bowing approach, has resulted in leaders who have lost all respect for the US. He refuses to criticize tyrants and dictators, and what do they do?
Far better, Brotherhood leaders think, to work with the army as much as possible, perhaps even to support a non-Islamist president. Meanwhile, the Brotherhood can play the key role in writing a Constitution that would move Egypt toward Islamism. It would take such ministries as education, social welfare, and religion that would help it increase and strengthen the size of its support base due to both ideological indoctrination and patronage.
In other words, your enemy reacts with disdain. You may not criticize him but he’ll criticize you. You may not do things he doesn’t like but he’ll do things you don’t like.And, the Muslim Brotherhood gains power in the Egypt.
And each time Obama ignores these insults, ignores the violations of US interests, ignores the threats and attacks on US allies.
*****
But there’s something else going on here that shows his ignorance and signals his ineffectiveness. America’s enemies know perfectly well where their interests lie. Of course, the Venezuelan regime benefits by building alliances with fellow radicals and anti-Americans. Iran’s regime benefits in many ways by seeking nuclear weapons.
Obama thinks that he can persuade radicals to be moderate.Good luck with that.