"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[Jane_the_Bane]

The grey wolves are sectarian muslims.

Maraş Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very link you bring up as your source pretty much establishes that this is not a predominantly religious group, but one that's built around ultra-nationalism and neo-fascism.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Thats what i was looking for. Was just checking if you were one of those Qutbis who are pro-ikhwan. I think we share a similiar view though i would not use symbols.

I don't get hung up on names or labels. I take the good and leave the bad. I find it's better to not alienate (most) different Muslim groups and to let them and the world know that we stand in solidarity with them when they're attacked (since the Muslims' allies are God and each other.....though there are definitely some sincere non-Muslims who strive for justice).

I would not be surprised if that was the case. The US helped overthrow many democratically elected leaders, so they could put in friendly dictators. Just look at the history of Latin and South America. Some say that they are influencing protesters in Ukraine who are opposed to Yanukovich.

Y'know, these types of facts make conspiracy theories seem less crazy (and I'm one of those people who normally doesn't delve into conspiracy theories). Maybe making conspiracy theories seem crazy is a conspiracy in and of itself! ughh....

I'm quite sure there was more to the actions of these Muslims than wearing beards, but I don't doubt that torture was going on. These things happened by circumventing the court system, not because they permitted it. If the executive arm chooses to ignore the court's rulings there is no much that can be done.

1.) No, it was very much just due to having beards:

In the new Egypt, beards appear where they were once banned - The Washington Post

And now people with beards are being attacked again (since they've labeled the MB a terrorist organization & assume that anyone with a beard is MB....though it shouldn't matter even if they were):

Beards, niqab become liability in Egypt after crackdown | Egypt Independent

Thanks again, pro-coup supporters, for bringing back the same "government" the Egyptians had under Mubarak.

2.) You really think that Mubarak didn't have a large influence over every aspect of the government? That the court ruled against Mubarak frequently? I mean, these are the same courts that have freed Hosni Mubarak from prison during his retrial even though he's been sentenced to life in prison. And it's not even like they had pressure from the public - the public didn't WANT him out.

3.) The majority of the voters wanted a new constitution. Over and over we see that the Muslim Brotherhood were getting the largest percentage of the votes. Why should they follow what you want to have in their constitution?

That's a problem. A judiciary must be independent from the executive arm for democracy to work. If any administration has the authority to remove previously appointed judges that can't happen. More importantly Morsi insisted that presidential decrees would not be subject to judicial review an act clearly in violation of the separation of powers essential to democracy.

1.) Why should he be subjected to judicial reviews if the judicial branch is still the same as it was under Mubarak. What faith have they inspired?

2.) He DIDN'T remove the previous members, unfortunately.

As the article I pasted said:

Furthermore, just like other democratically elected chief executives who function within party systems he should have exercised his right to induct into his cabinet almost exclusively members of the Muslim Brotherhood, thus ensuring the loyalty of the executive branch. In particular, he should have appointed a Muslim Brother as the minister of the interior in charge of the police, with orders to quickly root out those remnants of the Mubarak regime who continued to hold office while conspiring against the elected government.

Opinion: In Egypt, get ready for extremist backlash - CNN.com

The military and police are part of the executive not judicial functions of government.

Perhaps you missed the word "and" in what you quoted.

Where did you get that from? The last time anyone declared martial law in the US was in 1963 when the Governor of Alabama declared it against Freedom Riders trying to end segregation.

I didn't say it was declared. I said it was pretty much:

Ron Paul: Shutdown After Boston Bombings More Frightening Than Attack Itself

Well, once you declare martial law there is no more democracy to preserve. Which is not to say I support the heavy-handed way the military has handled things.

1.) But you support the coup in and of itself?

2.) Would you give the same arguments if there was a coup in the US? That there wasn't any more democracy to preserve therefore a coup is justified?

3.) That didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide for the majority what they want in a democracy? Why is their voice given more importance?

No, but when one seeks to circumvent the judiciary and declares martial law they are demonstrating they have no real understanding of the nature of democracy.

Nor do people who support the military coup have a real understanding of the nature of democracy. The coup that killed more than 1,000 protesters in less than 2 months.

Even democratically elected leaders can become dictators and that is what Morsi did.

Not really. If that's a dictator, I wish all dictators were like him. And if he's a dictator, I assume you would call Obama and the rest of this government one too. Right?

It's Morsi who had him arrested.

Some people from the public wanted to take him to court but all charges were dropped. His show was never canceled indefinitely to the best of my knowledge. And he was fully attacking Morsi (not holding back at all).

But when Youssef made a small, tiny joke against Sisi (something about how Sisi has turned into chocolate), his show was pulled off the air and he had to flee. lol, still makes me laugh @ the irony.

It is not only that. It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities. The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority. It is also about the separation of powers. Those are things that preserve a democracy.

Neither does the minority have the right to decide for the majority what's best for the country in a democracy. Respecting the majority-vote is a pretty big aspect of democracy that's supposed to be preserved. If you don't like the current leader, you wait for the next. Simple as.

Nearly every democratic country can bring up reasons why they want to overthrow the current leader. Why is Egypt being singled out? Because he was a religious Muslim leader?

What in Islam calls for circumventing the judiciary and declaring martial law? What in Islam allows for the oppression of minorities?

Judiciary and martial laws are not terms that existed during the Prophet's time. What I do know is that nothing in Islaam allows for allowing people to rule by other than Islaam in a Muslim country, though. Islaam does not allow for preferring man-made laws to God's laws.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Judiciary and martial laws are not terms that existed during the Prophet's time. What I do know is that nothing in Islaam allows for allowing people to rule by other than Islaam in a Muslim country, though. Islaam does not allow for preferring man-made laws to God's laws.

Ah, so you *are* an islamist who supports theocratic dictatorships. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

It would be tyranny the moment one or both of these factors apply:

1. People are forced to get abortions.
2. Physicians are forced to perform the procedure (in cases where it is not a life-or-death situation).

As long as it is ascertained that those who feel strongly about these issues can live by their beliefs, their liberty is not infringed upon.

I would say the babies' liberty is totally infringed upon. So would you be willing to say that this is tyranny of the majority?

Also, these anti-abortion people probably don't see a difference between innocent adults being murdered for silly reasons vs. babies in the womb being murdered for silly reasons.

Well, then what they'd get would not be a democracy, since their religion would assert and force its idiosyncratic beliefs upon everyone, regardless of whether they share them or not.

Why would it not be a democracy? Democracies in the West also have laws that are asserted and forced upon their populations regardless of whether everyone agrees with them or not.

Morsi was seizing absolute power with emergency laws. By the time the coup struck, Egypt had already ceased to be a democracy.
And again, I point you to the Weimar Republic in 1933: Hitler became the democratically elected president, backed by less radical conservative parties, with nearly one-third of the voters behind him.

lol, Egypt did not cease to be a democracy until the usual pro-democracy secularists supported the military coup that killed 1,000+ of the anti-coup (actual pro-democracy in this case) protesters when overtaking the country against the majority voters' wishes because they thought that their voices and opinions were more important than democracy and the majority voters.

Morsi never had full power. IF he had a little more power than he did (not even full power), he would've gotten rid of all of the military and police members. If he did, then the coup probably never would have happened.

Because it would be a farce to call an undemocratic system anything other than that. A genuine democracy needs to protect the rights of the WHOLE populace, and not just legislate the particular beliefs of whoever holds the majority at the time.

A genuine democracy is when the majority of the population elects a leader and then letting that ruler stay the allotted time even if a minority hates him. That's what happens every 4 years in America even though a significant portion of the country probably strongly dislikes the elected leader.

Going by your standards,, there is no democracy in the world because every party that comes in through the majority vote implements their specific values. Democrats in the US are pro-gun control and will try to pass laws based on their particular beliefs. Republicans are anti-gun control and will try to pass laws based on their particular beliefs.

By your "logic", Nazi Germany remained a democracy by virtue of the fact that Hitler was democratically elected, and the Nuremberg laws were a legitimate act of seeing the will of the people put into law.

Hitler wasn't democratically elected by the majority of the voters. Nice try, though.

Why don't you just admit that you want democracy everywhere unless the majority votes for a religious Muslim leader? Vote for anyone you like - republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, 3rd parties, etc. (who will push to have things passed that are in line with their personal values) - just not "Islamists"! Because THAT'S where the line is drawn and it is understandable if a military coup happens that kills more than 1,000 protesters to remove such a leader.

As I said in my initial post, it's a war against Islaam. We've seen it in Algeria, in Gaza, and now Egypt. People like you will claim you want democracy but when Muslims try to implement democracy (even though we don't really have such a concept in Islaam), it's not good enough because they're not electing the types of people you want them to elect. So basically, "You must vote democratically for the officials I want you to elect or else!!!!"

But carry on with your "intellect" and justifying the unjustifiable. You would make good company with those urban, well-cultured, murderous, pro-coup Egyptians you seem to favor so much.

 

[smaneck]

1.) No, it was very much just due to having beards:

In the new Egypt, beards appear where they were once banned - The Washington Post

Uh, that article indicates that you could lose your job working for the government if you wore a beard, not that you would be tortured and beaten. However, women are being tortured and beaten in many Muslim countries for not adopting "Islamic dress" sometimes even when they are not Muslims.

Thanks again, pro-coup supporters, for bringing back the same "government" the Egyptians had under Mubarak.

I wouldn't say I'm a pro-coup supporter. I'm just saying that once Morsi assumed all these 'emergency' powers, there was no longer a democracy to protec.

2.) You really think that Mubarak didn't have a large influence over every aspect of the government?

I think he had less influence over the judicial system than any other, which is why he looked for so many ways to sidestep it.

I mean, these are the same courts that have freed Hosni Mubarak from prison during his retrial even though he's been sentenced to life in prison.

Egyptian law only allows a person to be incarcerated for two years pending a trial. Mubarak had already been held that long. It was not like he was set free to do whatever he wanted. He was transferred to a military hospital.

And it's not even like they had pressure from the public - the public didn't WANT him out.

What you don't seem to understand is that courts aren't suppose to bow to public pressure, they are suppose to uphold the law, which they did in this case.

1.) But you support the coup in and of itself?

No, I don't. But I don't pretend they were overthrowing a democracy.

2.) Would you give the same arguments if there was a coup in the US? That there wasn't any more democracy to preserve therefore a coup is justified?

Again, I never said the coup was right.

Nor do people who support the military coup have a real understanding of the nature of democracy. The coup that killed more than 1,000 protesters in less than 2 months.

I agree.

Not really. If that's a dictator, I wish all dictators were like him. And if he's a dictator, I assume you would call Obama and the rest of this government one too. Right?

No, I've never seen Obama do anything equivalent to undermining democracy like Morsi did.

What I do know is that nothing in Islaam allows for allowing people to rule by other than Islaam in a Muslim country, though. Islaam does not allow for preferring man-made laws to God's laws.

So beating men for wearing a beard=bad
Beating women for not wearing hijab or niqab=good

Have I got that right?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Uh, that article indicates that you could lose your job working for the government if you wore a beard, not that you would be tortured and beaten. However, women are being tortured and beaten in many Muslim countries for not adopting "Islamic dress" sometimes even when they are not Muslims.

Maybe you didn't read thoroughly. The article indicated that it was banned either by law or by custom in some places in Egypt. Besides, I never said that they were necessarily tortured (though Egyptian friends in America who fled Egypt when Mubarak was still there have told me that it wasn't uncommon for people with beards to be arrested or harassed). I said that it was essentially a crime to have a beard in Egypt.

And now we're back to that state:

Mohamed Shaby, 27, was arrested two days after an attack on pro-Morsi protestors in mid-August. When he and his friends were on their way back home from Heliopolis, where the protests took place, a group of young Egyptians stopped their car. They ordered them out of the vehicle, checked their ID's, searched the automobile, and called the police.

"Officers thanked the thugs and put us in a police car," Shaby told Al Jazeera. "At the police station we were detained with 27 others. Some of them, like my friends, were doctors and lawyers. Prisoners with beards were beaten up and yelled at by the police officers, while other policemen took pictures of it. It was horrible."

Shaby, who has no connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, said he suspects his arrest had something to do with his beard. After a conversation with a prosecutor, he was told he had to stay in prison until his trial, although no indication was given when that would be.

Blast from the past for Egyptian dissidents - Al Jazeera English

I think he had less influence over the judicial system than any other, which is why he looked for so many ways to sidestep it.

I'm not interested in how much more or less influence relative to other branches he had over the judicial branch. He just had a lot of influence over it.

Egyptian law only allows a person to be incarcerated for two years pending a trial. Mubarak had already been held that long. It was not like he was set free to do whatever he wanted. He was transferred to a military hospital.

He was already convicted to life in prison. He was given a retrial after the toppling of Morsi. Convenient, to say the least.

What you don't seem to understand is that courts aren't suppose to bow to public pressure, they are suppose to uphold the law, which they did in this case.

The law doesn't say that they have to grant him a retrial. Especially right after the violent toppling of the actual democratically elected leader who replaced the dictator who was given life in prison.

And I'd be interested in knowing that if the maximum of two years still apply even though he's been sentenced to life already.

No, I've never seen Obama do anything equivalent to undermining democracy like Morsi did.

1.) Extended the Patriot Act
2.) NDAA
3.) NSA leaks
4.) Extrajudicially approved of the assassination of not just one, but two, American citizens. And yet another one (the 17 year old son of one of the American citizens assassinated I mentioned in the previous sentence) was "unintentionally" killed by a drone strike in Yemen and we still don't know who they were intending to kill by that strike.

No other president in US history has ever extrajudicially executed one of their citizens without due process. These two citizens weren't even charged!

So beating men for wearing a beard=bad
Beating women for not wearing hijab or niqab=good

Have I got that right?

Where did the women come from? Does that go on in Egypt? Because as far as I know, the Egyptian government (post-coup) is targeting women who wear the niqaab (and perhaps hijaab) and men who grow beards.

All I said was that a government that claims to be Islaamic must rule by Allaah's laws and not their own. Muslims are not supposed to twist our scripture to fit our beliefs.

 

[smaneck]

1.) Extended the Patriot Act

Only after Congress passed a bill calling for its extension. Had he done so without Congressional approval you could accuse him of acting in a dictatorial manner.

2.) NDAA

What does that have to do with Obama?

3.) NSA leaks

Unfortunately the Patriot Act gave the NSA this kind of power. If Congress does not like the power the Patriot Act gave the President they should abolish it and I would applaud them if they did.

4.) Extrajudicially approved of the assassination of not just one, but two, American citizens. And yet another one (the 17 year old son of one of the American citizens assassinated I mentioned in the previous sentence) was "unintentionally" killed by a drone strike in Yemen and we still don't know who they were intending to kill by that strike.

Well, I'm sure if he had voluntarily turned himself in we would have been happy to give him a fair trial. As it was he was operating as an enemy combatant outside the US borders. In such a case, the rules of war apply. I don't much like drone attacks but they sure beat invading and occupying other countries.

Where did the women come from? Does that go on in Egypt? Because as far as I know, the Egyptian government (post-coup) is targeting women who wear the niqaab (and perhaps hijaab) and men who grow beards.

It happens in quite a few Muslim countries.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I would say the babies' liberty is totally infringed upon. So would you be willing to say that this is tyranny of the majority?

No.

As difficult an issue as abortion might be (in contrast to far more straightforward observation that non-religious or other-religious people should not be compelled by law to adhere to the tenets of a specific religion), essentially forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term no matter what is considerably more problematic in terms of liberty than allowing first-trimester abortions.
Both for practical reasons (the result of such a ban would be backyard "surgery", abandoned infants, and the murder of fully developed, healthy newborns) and for ethical reasons (denying women control of their own body), abolishing abortion is not an option.
.

Also, these anti-abortion people probably don't see a difference between innocent adults being murdered for silly reasons vs. babies in the womb being murdered for silly reasons.

Biologically/medically speaking, they would be wrong.
I know that some religions ascribe a "soul" to each fertilized egg, but as far neural activity is concerned, a first-trimester embryo hardly qualifies as a person.
Still, abortion should never be an easy step - and guess what: it isn't. The myth of callous, self-centred monsters lining up in a queue to have those pesky little things removed from their uterus is exactly that: a myth. VERY few women take this step lightly.

Why would it not be a democracy? Democracies in the West also have laws that are asserted and forced upon their populations regardless of whether everyone agrees with them or not.

These laws are based on a constitutional foundation of civil liberties, ascertaining that minority rights are protected and that the majority does not simply bulldoze over everyone who stands in the way of their idiosyncratic beliefs.
Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find any state that lives up to this lofty ideal all the time, in all cases. But at least they are trying, which is something that cannot be said about Islamic theocracies.

lol, Egypt did not cease to be a democracy until the usual pro-democracy secularists supported the military coup that killed 1,000+ of the anti-coup (actual pro-democracy in this case) protesters when overtaking the country against the majority voters' wishes because they thought that their voices and opinions were more important than democracy and the majority voters.

I don't believe in black-and-white conflicts where one side is clearly "good" and the other "evil". And the role of the military in Egypt certainly gives me a stomach ache. Much of the criticism you level at the current Egyptian goverment is definitely valid - yet that does not change the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood abused their position to gradually turn Egypt into an Islamist state.

Going by your standards,, there is no democracy in the world because every party that comes in through the majority vote implements their specific values.

Within the limitations set by a constitution founded on specific civil liberties that must not be infringed upon.

Hitler wasn't democratically elected by the majority of the voters. Nice try, though.

He was democratically elected, as part of a right-of-centre coalition that handed him the position of Reichskanzler. And no other single party gathered as many votes as his in the last free and fair election in November, 1938. The NSDAP lost many votes, but still emerged with a whopping 33.09%, WAY ahead of the Social Democrats (20.43%), the Communists (16.86%), and the Centre party (11.93%). Nice try, though.

Why don't you just admit that you want democracy everywhere unless the majority votes for a religious Muslim leader? Vote for anyone you like - republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, 3rd parties, etc. (who will push to have things passed that are in line with their personal values) - just not "Islamists"!

If those "religious muslim leader" accept civil liberties instead of erecting an autocratic theocracy that forces their particular taboos upon the populace as a whole, they are very welcome to hold any political office they want. When their first goal is to dismantle a democracy and replace it with an autocratic regime founded upon Islamic values, however, that's a problem.
You want democracy? Fine! Then keep it democratic.

As I said in my initial post, it's a war against Islaam. We've seen it in Algeria, in Gaza, and now Egypt. People like you will claim you want democracy but when Muslims try to implement democracy (even though we don't really have such a concept in Islaam), it's not good enough because they're not electing the types of people you want them to elect. So basically, "You must vote democratically for the officials I want you to elect or else!!!!"

No, that is not how it works.
Islamists dismantle democracies if they are put in a position of power, because - as you pointed out so well - there is no such concept in "Islaam".

 

[smaneck]

Maybe you didn't read thoroughly. The article indicated that it was banned either by law or by custom in some places in Egypt.

The place in question were:

"police stations, banks, airliners, television news programs and other places where they have long been banned by law or custom."

But the issue wasn't that you can't walk into a police station or a bank or fly on an airplane wearing a beard. The issue was that you can't work in those places with a beard. Granted, these restrictions were not right but no more wrong than requiring women to wear Islamic dress.

All I said was that a government that claims to be Islaamic must rule by Allaah's laws and not their own. Muslims are not supposed to twist our scripture to fit our beliefs.

As defined by whom? As I mentioned in another thread the only way democracy and an Islamic state can be compatible is if it is recognized elected legislatures represent the ijma (consensus) of the community and not allow the 'ulama to assume that role.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

1.) Extended the Patriot Act

Only after Congress passed a bill calling for its extension. Had he done so without Congressional approval you could accuse him of acting in a dictatorial manner.

"It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities."

So...."no more democracy to preserve"?

2.) NDAA

What does that have to do with Obama?

He signed something unconstitutional into law. What happened to the protection of basic human rights? So to add on to your above quotes:

"The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority."

3.) NSA leaks

Unfortunately the Patriot Act gave the NSA this kind of power.

"no more democracy to preserve"?

Well, I'm sure if he had voluntarily turned himself in we would have been happy to give him a fair trial. As it was he was operating as an enemy combatant outside the US borders. In such a case, the rules of war apply. I don't much like drone attacks but they sure beat invading and occupying other countries.

All these excuses for Obama and the US government, none for Morsi. Huh...

Anyway:

1.) Anwar al Awlaki was not even charged. And why the heck was his son killed weeks later??

2.) "the central reason the Obama Administration’s act was lawless is that in all the scenarios where the intentional killing of a U.S. citizen is permitted, there is a legal principle at work: the principle of immediacy."

In assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama left the Constitution behind - The Daily Beast

3.) "The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice...."

--

"Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability."

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

4.) I don't think the Yemeni or Pakistani victims differentiate between drone strikes and being occupied/invaded. They are occupied and invaded by drones.

 

[smaneck]

"It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities."

So...."no more democracy to preserve"?

He signed something unconstitutional into law.

If it is unconstitutional anyone has the right to challenge it before the Supreme Court. They are the ultimate authority about what is or is not constitutional.

What happened to the protection of basic human rights? So to add on to your above quotes:

Huh, how does funding our military violate human rights?

1.) Anwar al Awlaki was not even charged. And why the heck was his son killed weeks later??

Enemy combatants don't have to be charged. We don't "charge" enemy soldiers before we kill them. But actually he had been charged in Yemen and a judge there had authorized him to be caught "dead or alive." Aside from that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country. As for the killing of his son, that was apparently an accident. The real target was Ibrahim al-Banna, head of al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

4.) I don't think the Yemeni or Pakistani victims differentiate between drone strikes and being occupied/invaded. They are occupied and invaded by drones.

Well, the victims are too dead to do any differentiating. But I think the people of Yemen or Pakistan as a whole would rather not be occupied or invaded.

 

[wn123455]

"It is also about the protection of basic human rights, especially those of minorities."

So...."no more democracy to preserve"?

He signed something unconstitutional into law. What happened to the protection of basic human rights? So to add on to your above quotes:

"The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority."

"no more democracy to preserve"?

All these excuses for Obama and the US government, none for Morsi. Huh...

Anyway:

1.) Anwar al Awlaki was not even charged. And why the heck was his son killed weeks later??

2.) "the central reason the Obama Administration’s act was lawless is that in all the scenarios where the intentional killing of a U.S. citizen is permitted, there is a legal principle at work: the principle of immediacy."

In assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama left the Constitution behind - The Daily Beast

3.) "The most extremist power any political leader can assert is the power to target his own citizens for execution without any charges or due process, far from any battlefield. The Obama administration has not only asserted exactly that power in theory, but has exercised it in practice...."

--

"Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability."

Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | theguardian.com

4.) I don't think the Yemeni or Pakistani victims differentiate between drone strikes and being occupied/invaded. They are occupied and invaded by drones.

Oh, well I take Indonesia as a Muslim country (and West Papua is part of Indonesia).

I listened to an NPR segment on West Papua and I did some research on the country itself. That's about it for now.
You have said in the past that the fact that I am not outspoken about West Papua & Indonesia but am about Palestine (or whatever countries), I am hypocritical. So would it be hypocritical of you to support marriages between men and women but not between those of the same gender? Would you protest in favor of one but not the other in terms of marriage rights?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7789643-70/#post64753319

You talk about muslim majority countries being occupied and invaded. You think it is alright if a muslim majority country invades and occupies a non-muslim country.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Enemy combatants don't have to be charged. We don't "charge" enemy soldiers before we kill them. But actually he had been charged in Yemen and a judge there had authorized him to be caught "dead or alive." Aside from that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country.

1.) You mentioned Awlaki should've turned himself in. Turn himself in for what? He wasn't charged.

2.) You ignored points 2 and 3. Point 3 is from a well-known civil rights lawyer.

3.) What happened to the concepts:"Democracy isn't just about popular vote, it also requires a proper balance of power." and "an act clearly in violation of the separation of powers essential to democracy."

If there was no more democracy left to preserve/protect in Egypt, then by virtue of all the things I mentioned in the past few posts, there is no more democracy left to preserve in the US.

As for the killing of his son, that was apparently an accident. The real target was Ibrahim al-Banna, head of al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

What a profound coincidence. 16-year-old AbdurRahman al-Awlaki was murdered just a few weeks after his father was murdered without even being charged but the government said someone else was the target. Given the government's terrible track record, I'm finding it hard to believe them.

"....they have claimed they were targeting Ibrahim al-Banna. Though AQAP reported that he was never at the site.

But here’s what a former Obama official told Jeremy Scahill about Abdulrahman’s killing.

...John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, “suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review.”

In other words, it sounds like some in the Administration suspect that someone within the targeting chain of command may have invented the Ibrahim al-Banna presence as a way to get at Awlaki’s son."

What “Not Specifically Targeted” Means for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki | emptywheel

Well, the victims are too dead to do any differentiating. But I think the people of Yemen or Pakistan as a whole would rather not be occupied or invaded.

The families of those killed are also victims of drone strikes.

The only people that it affects differently are the US soldiers because they don't even have to look at their enemies' faces anymore before killing them. Apparently all they need to know is that there are males of military age in the vicinity and they can strike.

As for the people in Yemen or Pakistan, what difference does it make to them whether their invaders and occupiers are humans or drones? It seems less obvious? Or maybe it takes up less space?

 

[wn123455]

1.) You mentioned Awlaki should've turned himself in. Turn himself in for what? He wasn't charged.

2.) You ignored points 2 and 3. Point 3 is from a well-known civil rights lawyer.

3.) What happened to the concepts:"Democracy isn't just about popular vote, it also requires a proper balance of power." and "an act clearly in violation of the separation of powers essential to democracy."

If there was no more democracy left to preserve/protect in Egypt, then by virtue of all the things I mentioned in the past few posts, there is no more democracy left to preserve in the US.

What a profound coincidence. 16-year-old AbdurRahman al-Awlaki was murdered just a few weeks after his father was murdered without even being charged but the government said someone else was the target. Given the government's terrible track record, I'm finding it hard to believe them.

"....they have claimed they were targeting Ibrahim al-Banna. Though AQAP reported that he was never at the site.

But here’s what a former Obama official told Jeremy Scahill about Abdulrahman’s killing.

...John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, “suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review.”

In other words, it sounds like some in the Administration suspect that someone within the targeting chain of command may have invented the Ibrahim al-Banna presence as a way to get at Awlaki’s son."

What “Not Specifically Targeted” Means for Abdulrahman al-Awlaki | emptywheel

The families of those killed are also victims of drone strikes.

The only people that it affects differently are the US soldiers because they don't even have to look at their enemies' faces anymore before killing them. Apparently all they need to know is that there are males of military age in the vicinity and they can strike.

As for the people in Yemen or Pakistan, what difference does it make to them whether their invaders and occupiers are humans or drones? It seems less obvious? Or maybe it takes up less space?

You don't feel any sympathy for the West Papuan victims of the indonesian occupation of West Papua.

Indonesia accused of using Australian helicopters in West Papua 'genocide' | World news | theguardian.com

I guess indonesian helicopter pilots do not even have to look at the faces of West Papuan victims because they have helicopters.

 

[smaneck]

The families of those killed are also victims of drone strikes.

I don't doubt that.

The only people that it affects differently are the US soldiers because they don't even have to look at their enemies' faces anymore before killing them. Apparently all they need to know is that there are males of military age in the vicinity and they can strike.

No, they are a great deal more selective than that. The truth is that these drones, along with a few Special Forces actions, are succeeding in taking out our problem whereas ten years of occupation have accomplished nothing.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't think the problem of terrorism can ultimately be solved by military means. Trying to eliminate the Quaeda and similar organizations by sending soldiers - or drones - to kill their leaders makes about as much sense as trying to eliminate the Italian mafia by invading - or drone-bombing - Naples and Sicily.
Criminal syndicates do not stand and fall with their leaders (in most cases), nor can they be tackled the way hostile nations can. In the case of the Quaeda, an even greater problem is the fact that every act of aggression on the part of the West plays directly into the hands of their propaganda, supporting the idea that there's a "war against Islam", and that the Quaeda are in fact a noble organization of freedom fighters standing up for the oppressed.
How did the masked anarchist in "V for Vendetta" put it? "Beneath this mask isn't flesh and blood - there's an idea, and ideas are bullet-proof." Every terrorist killed marks a couple of new recruits - especially when there's been collateral damage.

LoveBeingAMuslimah's tribalist mentality reflects this rather well: in her perception, the terrorists (who belong to "her side" by virtue of their religious allegiance) are obviously poor victims, while the USA are a foreign aggressor that needs to be brought low.

 

[smaneck]

You talk about muslim majority co...te. Whether it should be is another question.

 

[smaneck]

I don't think the problem of terrorism can ultimately be solved by military means.

So what alternative would you suggest? Drone bombing is not the equivalent of bombing Naples or Sicily. Those drones are going after very specific targets. Sometimes they get it wrong and even when they take out a terrorist they are likely to take out some innocent victims with them. That, of course, is the problem but isn't that always what happens in war?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

No

So you get to choose what is oppression and whose liberty can be infringed upon and that's not tyranny. But other people can't. Gotcha.

These laws are based on a constitutional foundation of civil liberties,

Oh, so NOW it's ok to have laws that are asserted and forced upon everyone whether they agree with them or not.

Anyway, an Islaamic state would give civil liberties based on Islaam.

Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find any state that lives up to this lofty ideal all the time, in all cases. But at least they are trying, which is something that cannot be said about Islamic theocracies.

This is what it sounds like to me, "As long as you pay lip-service, it's absolutely fine. Just don't base yourself off a religion."

the Muslim Brotherhood abused their position to gradually turn Egypt into an Islamist state.

....Islamic state? Hardly.

Within the limitations set by a constitution founded on specific civil liberties that must not be infringed upon.

But they'll still be trying to implement their values that not everyone agrees on.

He was democratically elected, as part of a right-of-centre coalition that handed him the position of Reichskanzler.

"Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote."

No, Hitler Did Not Come to Power Democratically « LobeLog.com

When their first goal is to dismantle a democracy and replace it with an autocratic regime founded upon Islamic values, however, that's a problem.
You want democracy? Fine! Then keep it democratic.

Islaamic values and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. But instead of the subjective values of man, these civil liberties are based off of an All-Knowing God's revelations which give us the best morals. Different countries have different civil liberties. What makes it so different here?

Anyway, I won't be surprised if the religious Muslim leaders will tell their secularist portions (or other countries pushing for them to become "democratic) to go stick their democracy where the sun don't shine because they've seen what happens. In Algeria, hundreds of thousands were killed because the military didn't want to let the "Islamists" who were well on their way to winning democratically assume the leadership position in the early 90's. In Gaza in 2006, the winning party was declared a terrorist organization and sanctions were imposed on the Palestinians because they voted for the wrong people. And now in Egypt, more than 1,000 people have been killed in the first two months alone in order to remove the democratically elected president through a military coup.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

As defined by whom?

As defined by God and His Messenger (i.e. his sunnah). Those who best understood Islaamic rules were the first 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs, the first 3 generations in general, and the rest of the pious predecessors.

No, they are a great deal more selective than that. The truth is that these drones, along with a few Special Forces actions, are succeeding in taking out our problem whereas ten years of occupation have accomplished nothing.

1.) Less than 2% of those who have been killed by drones in Pakistan have been high-profile targets. Not a very impressive percentage. Out of Sight, Out of Mind: A visualization of drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004

2.) Also by Glenn Greenwald (may Allaah guide him to Islaam) who so accurately points out that "militant" is a deceptive term which basically covers anyone besides women or those proven without a shadow of a doubt to be innocent:

By “militant,” the Obama administration literally means nothing more than: any military-age male whom we kill, even when we know nothing else about them. They have no idea whether the person killed is really a militant: if they’re male and of a certain age they just call them one in order to whitewash their behavior and propagandize the citizenry (unless conclusive evidence somehow later emerges proving their innocence).

“Militants”: media propaganda - Salon.com