Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Arab Spring Becomes Middle East Winter


For those of you who worship at the alter of the Arab Spring, read the following article and see what is happening in Egypt. The banning of bikinis and covering the Pharaoh's faces will only the the FIRST step.  In the end, there will be no moderate governments in Egypt and that trend will be the same in all the countries of  the Middle East.  They all will be extreme anti-US and anti-Israel.

 It should have been clear to the State Department and the Obama Administration because it  is obvious to anyone who understands human nature, Islam and extreme Muslims, that the so called "awakening of the Middle East" was one that will never happen.  The  moderates will be run over by the crazies.  It always happens that way. Moderates don't believe as strongly in their views as the wackos. Additionally, most moderates just want to live their lives and do not have strong feelings one way or the other  while those on the far end of the spectrum cannot see a world other than the one they envision.


In Nazi Germany, the Party was only a small portion of the public and most of the Army were not Nazis. However, the control was complete. It will be no different in the Middle East and we can look to Iran as the example of the way it will go.

The Shah controlled Iran, had his secret police and his prisons, but people prospered. Freedom abounded.  Women wore western garb, drove, went to school and university.  The economy was booming. Once he was kicked out, all of the progress stopped and Iran retreated to the 12th century.  Egypt and the rest of the Arab Spring countries will be no different.

Why did not the Administration see this coming? The answer is simple.  It is either incompetency or they want it to happen. I would bet on the latter. What is your opinion?

Here is the article:

Goodbye Egypt, Hello Iran

Stephen Brown - Daily Mailer/FrontPage,  September 12th, 2011

While the elections meant to turn Egypt into a democracy are yet to be held, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is already turning the country towards an Iranian-like theocracy. The MB announced recently that it wants government officials to adopt stricter regulations, mainly targeting tourists, regarding bikinis and alcohol consumption in public. In a sharia law-ruled state, which the MB hopes to introduce in Egypt, alcohol and certain women’s clothing deemed too revealing would be banned outright. The MB’s proposed alcohol and bikini restrictions probably represent the first step in making this ban a reality.

“Beach tourism must take the values and norms of our society into account,” Muhammad Saad Al-Katany, secretary-general of the Freedom and Justice Party, told Egyptian tourism officials in late August. “We must place regulations on tourists wishing to visit Egypt, which we will announce in advance.”

The Freedom and Justice Party is the political wing of the MB. It will contest elections, scheduled for this November, against 17 other political parties and stands a good chance of becoming the strongest faction in Egypt’s new parliament. But many Egyptians fear that a triumphant Freedom and Justice Party will radicalise Egyptian society, turning it into a strict, religious theocracy like Iran’s.

“This is how things began in Iran,” said Hani Henry, a psychology professor at Cairo’s American University. “The moderate youth wanted to implement changes, but the mullahs hijacked the revolution. The same thing is happening now here in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. It makes me sick to my stomach.”

Al-Katany says his party will investigate the alcohol and bikini issue and will amend legislation accordingly after the elections. The Freedom and Justice youth director, Ali Khafagy, said the answer to this issue his party finds so offensive may lie in having tourists wear modest swimwear and separate beaches for men and women.

“Bathing suits and mixing on the beaches go against our traditions,” said Khafagy. “It’s not just a matter of religion. When I go to the beach, I don’t want to see nudity.”

But a hardcore Egyptian Salafist group, called Dawa, really stirred fears in Egypt’s tourist industry when one of its representatives, Abd Al-Minim A-Shahhat, told a London-based Arab newspaper that the tourist-attracting treasures of Egyptian antiquity, like the sphinx, pyramids and pharaonic statues should be covered up. Comparing them to idols in Mecca in pre-Islamic times, he called them un-Islamic.

“The pharaonic culture is a rotten culture,” A-Shahhat told the paper, adding the statues’ faces “should be covered with wax, since they are religiously forbidden.”

The idea that Egypt’s world-famous archaeological riches could be in danger is not so far-fetched. In Afghanistan, the sixth-century Bamiyan Buddhas, a United Nations World Heritage site, were victims of similar fanatical Islamist thinking in 2001. The Taliban, declaring the Buddhas also “un-Islamic,” destroyed the centuries-old architectural gems with explosives. Defacing ancient statues of Egypt’s pharaohs with wax is not many steps away from a repetition of the Bamiyan Buddhas’ fate.

The MB’s plan to restrict alcohol consumption and bikini-wearing tourists comes at a very inopportune time. The Egyptian tourism industry, one of the country’s main foreign currency earners, was hard hit by the Arab Spring. Earning about $13 billion annually prior to last January, the number of tourists visiting Egypt declined so much due to the political unrest since late January that tourism is expected to take in only $10 billion in revenue over the next year, starting last July. The industry has been losing $862 million a month in addition to the $1.16 million it lost in the month following the uprising last January 28.

Luxor in 1997, in which about 60 Western tourists were murdered by six terrorists. But this strategy backfired, as it deprived ordinary Egyptians dependent on the tourism trade of their livelihood when the tourists stopped coming. These people then turned against the radical Islamists.

As reported in a German newspaper, an Egyptian statistics office stated in July that tourist businesses were operating at only 30 percent of their normal level. At one popular tourist resort on the Red Sea, for example, all the hotels last week were closed except two. But encouragingly, the statistics office said reservations for fall and winter indicate a doubling of business for the industry. However, more violence and unrest after the November elections could see this fragile recovery disappear and new investments in the Egyptian tourism industry stalled.

Considering the importance of tourism to the Egyptian economy, there are those who believe the MB’s attempt to “Islamise” the industry will fail. One resort hotel owner told the same German newspaper that MB members are “intelligent, capitalistic people” who cannot dispense with tourism if they want to obtain and hold power. Millions of people also would take to the streets again, like last January, if their source of livelihood was endangered.

But this assessment does not take the power of ideology into account, and the willingness of ideologues to ruin countries and economies to realise their dogmatic beliefs. Iran is a good example. Even better examples are communist states, both current and former, that starved millions of their own people to death to set up their secular utopias. Rational, pragmatic thinking, as expressed by the hotel owner, plays no role among true believers, such as exist among the MB.

And neither does any feeling of humanitarianism. Like in Iran and in communist countries, it will be the ordinary people in Egypt who will go hungry and not the unfeeling religious good-thinkers and their families. The fact the proposed restrictions on tourism will affect the foreign currency supply that is used to buy wheat on world markets to feed Egypt’s poor is a strong indication of this lack of concern. The wheat price has doubled in the last year and Egypt, the largest wheat importer in the world, is already facing a large hunger problem without Islamist interference in one of its major foreign revenue generators.

One observer writes that “Islamists have never been enamoured of foreign tourism.” So it is not surprising that this area is one of the first, in which the MB publicly showed its true Islamist colors after last January’s revolution. Confrontation, even war, with Israel and the persecution and possible expulsion from Egypt of millions of Christians and moderate Muslims will also most likely follow. As for Egypt’s struggling tourism industry, if the MB does attain political power in November, which appears most likely, it can at least help out by opening burqa-renting businesses on resort beaches.
Bookmark and Share

13 comments:

  1. So what? This article is a good example of why I am a Ron Paul fan. Does every country in the world have to subscribe to the Christian religion? Let other countries have whatever kind of religion or political system they want. It is their business. So long as they do not attack another country, no other country should interfere with them. However, if they try to force their religion or political system on other countries, then let's go to war with them -- not to occupy their country for the next 50 years, but to drive them back inside their own borders and then leave them alone. This is fundamental Libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism is not Isolationism.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. No every country does not need to have the same religion, however, Islam is more than a religion. It is a political-religious-cultural-governmental system and it poses a danger to modern world. If we ignore it, we ignore it to our demise.

    Take a look at the advancement of Iran since they mullahs took over and you will see what we are facing. You would not want to live in a country like that. In fact, you could not even make any of your comments like you make if you lived there.

    Libertarianism would be illegal in a Islamic America as would all non-Islamic parties.

    My point in the article was to point out to the pointy headed ones that the Arab Spring is not what is being sold to Americans. It is a false hope that the government is fostering for some unknown reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't want to live in Iran. On the other hand, I don't want to have a war with Iran, Egypt, or any Islamic country that does not attack other countries. Just because we do not approve of their religion or their political system does not give us the right to attack their country any more than vice versa. Some folks are quick to demand their own rights to self-determination without respecting the same rights for citizens of other countries. From the Libertarian perspective, Egypt should be left free to run their country any way they want. Apparently, the majority of Egyptians prefer Muslim Brotherhood to Mubarak dictatorship, so they deposed their dictator and will soon hold elections. According to public opinion polls, the MB is the strongest political party and will do quite well in their elections. You don't have to like it. You just have to accept it, if you value the principle of self-determination through free elections. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, not many people see it his way.

    -- David

    ReplyDelete
  4. David, it does affect you. Probably not now but definitely in the future. The threat that we face is not unlike Germany in 1934. No we were not at war, yes it was far away but it is like a storm that is coming and one for which we must become prepared and be vigilant. To not do so would be foolhardy.

    The spreading of the Islamist threat grows with every day. It is the intention of Muslims around the world for this to be a world governed by Islamic law. That does effect you and the affect will be major.

    If you have not looked at the threat, I recommend that you do. It is coming and we can see what is occurring in the Middle East and how so called modern societies will decay, in our eyes, when it comes under Sharia law.

    It can happen here. Better to be prepared and forewarned than to be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What happened to Hitler? He attacked other countries and the Nazis were crushed. Same story here. If Islamic countries attack Israel (as in 1967), they get crushed. If Saddam attacks Kuwait, he gets crushed. That should be, and always has been, the correct response to cross-border aggression. Libertarians are not pacifists. But so long as Islamists, Nazis, communists dictatorships, fascist dictatorships, etc., etc. stay inside their own borders, they are free to have whatever political system, dreams of world domination, Sharia law, or anything else they want, whether the United States approves of it or not. That's the Libertarian position.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would agree that as long as they do not attack a neighbor, they can persecute their people as much as they want. However, as in 1934, we need to see the gathering storm and be prepared. We need a strong military so that we can "crush" the opposition when they leave their borders.

    Before WWII our soldiers were training with wooden guns as they had no rifles or bullets. The Army Air Corps did not have state of the art aircraft. Our tanks were no match of the German heavy armor. We were outmatched because we had been very isolationist and had pared our military down to a minimum.

    We cannot allow ourselves to be put in that position now for a couple reasons. We are a world leader and the rest of the world looks to us to be the world's policeman. We have the role even though others should do more.

    Secondly, we do not have the manufacturing ability in the United States that we had in 1941 that was instantly able to turn from making consumer goods to war materials. For example, it would take years to build new plants (which would need EPA and other government approvals before being constructed).

    We need to maintain a strong, prepared military so that we do not have to go through this buildup if, as some have suggested, we cut military spending by 2/3. That would be a recipe for disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When you say a cut of 2/3 would be a "disaster," you need to specify a time-frame. We have so many more weapons than China, it would take years for them to catch us even if we add nothing for years.

    Anyway, we can easily cut $1 trillion out of defense spending over the next 10 years, and still have the fire-power to wipe out any conventional army in the world.

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/05/news/economy/lawrence_korb_defense_spending/index.htm

    The problem is, we don't fight conventional wars anymore. They are asymmetrical wars in places like Afghanistan were a $235 billion plane is of little more value than a cheaper one. Let's spend the $235 billion putting Americans back to work building roads and bridges.


    --David

    ReplyDelete
  8. David, your idea and the Korb article you quote are a receipe for disaster. We will cut the armed services and it result in our not being able to defend ourselves when the time comes.

    Your comment that we don't fight conventional wars anymore is true in recent history, however, can you guarantee that there never will be a conventional war? No, no one can! To not to be prepared for it would be catastrophic. To drop all weapons systems (aircraft, tanks and aircraft carriers)would leave us unprotected.

    As far as putting people to work, all the people who are trained to drive bulldozers, gravel trains, asphalt paving machines etc are already working on the road projects. I don't know what your training is, but road building today is not what it was in the 30's. Today, one must be trained to run these machines. It is not putting someone on the end of a shovel!

    Back to my original point in the posting, Islam is on the march and we need to be prepared for all possibilities. We will have a conflict with Muslims so we must have our options covered.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, here is a rough comparison of the real numbers from our man Ron Paul…

    http://www.dailypaul.com/108801/us-china-russian-military-strength-compared

    You can find similar comparisons from many sources.

    As I said, there would be no "disaster" if we just cut our military spending down to equal what China or Russia spends. And no Islamic country would survive 30 days in a conventional war with the U.S. (even less if we nuke them by land, air, or sea). When you compare military power of countries, it is obvious. All the hysteria does, however, generate a lot of lucrative procurement contracts for the defense industry.

    Regarding construction of roads and bridges, I happen to know something on the topic. My dad was a member of the IUOE (International Union of Operating Engineers). For all those guys operating the big machines, there are laborers working on the ground. I was one of those guys myself working in the summers as a college student. Go watch an underseal repair crew at work sometime, for example. Our national defense does not depend on having a $235 billion warplane. Put that money to infrastructure -- like the Chinese are doing!

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  10. David, we can discuss the differences in spending and have contrasting articles etc etc, however, that is not my point. We need a strong military and disagree with you that we do need a $235 billion warplane. China is spending billions on armaments and yes, David, I know the numbers that you have pointed out. I don't buy them.

    Additionally you mention that "no Islamic country would survive 30 days...if we nuke them.)
    The United States will never nuke any country even if they nuked us first! We don't have the guts! Our leadership (both Repubs and Dems) are so weak and afraid to do anything that might hurt their parties re-election bid, they would do nothing. No Truman here, at least as I see them.

    As far as an Islamic country fighting us for more than 30 days, wrong, Afganistan has been going on for how long? What about Iraq? How many years did Iraq fight Iran? How long have the Arabs been fighting Israel?

    As far as rebuilding the roads,I have been watching as they have made a mess of the road outside my office. What I have seen is very few laborers, most of the work being done by machines. The road was broken up by machines, then the loaders put the old concrete in trucks, then the road graders and bulldozers moved the earth around and then the rollers came in to pack the earth. Then the concrete was poured by the big machine that spread the concrete into a road surface. Oh yes, I forget to mention the very little steel that was put into the mix. The only steel in this very heavily travelled road was between the pours.

    By the way this road was rebuilt ten years ago and it had steel in it. It will be redone again in the same or less time. We do not know how to build roads in Michigan!

    ReplyDelete
  11. What do you mean you don't "buy" the numbers? They come straight from the CIA. China has vastly less military power than the U.S. We know what they have, and they know what we have. It is not some big secret. We have spy satellites that can count Coke bottles on the ground (or planes, boats, missiles). We know everything they have, and have photos from space of their locations. Sorry if you don't "buy" that.



    You wrote, " As far as an Islamic country fighting us for more than 30 days, wrong, Afganistan has been going on for how long? What about Iraq? How many years did Iraq fight Iran? How long have the Arabs been fighting Israel?"

    You missed the key word in my statement. I said no Islamic country could last 30 days against the U.S. in a CONVENTIONAL war. By this, I mean one country's army vs. the U.S. military. The conventional war phase in Iraq lasted 3 weeks. When it comes to asymmetrical wars like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the $235 billion we are spending on fancy vertical landing airplanes are not worth a damn, and we have 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan to prove it. Nuclear submarines, F-35's, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs, etc. are useless against IED's and terrorists on suicide bombing missions. Are you really going to argue against that?

    There are about 12 million members in the construction laborer's union and only about 400,000 in the IUOE (the guys who operate the big machines outside your office), and that's without even counting the flaggers, office staff, truck drivers, foremen, etc. who also work for the construction companies. Anyway, I am sure a lot of those 12 million men would like to get back to work repairing roads, bridges, and schools.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  12. Check out this article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25submarine.html

    China is growing its submarine forces at a pace that has frightened those in the know. This is not for show, they have a plan. I don't know what the plan is, do you?

    I would agree that our advanced weaponry does not work well in a non-conventional environment, however, I ask again: can you guarantee that we will not have another conventional war? To not be prepared for such an event would be foolish. However, I would agree that there are some weapons systems that don't quite work right, Osprey comes to mind, however, subs, advanced aircraft, carriers and nuclear weapons are still important.

    Regarding jobs in construction, if I understand the comment, your idea is that we should hire the unemployed to build roads etal? What would they do? What companies are prepared to expand to hire all of these people? Who would fund this?

    ReplyDelete
  13. If it were only a battle of submarine fleets, the U.S. would defeat China's submarines easily....

    http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/08/03/us-vs-china-undersea/

    But when you add all of the U.S. superiority in airplanes, etc., China would be no match whatsoever in an conventional war with the U.S. It's just ridiculous.

    There are two ways to do the construction projects. One is the conventional way of the government soliciting bids from private construction companies. The money comes from closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers at Goldman Sachs. At least, that is how I would do it. You already know my attitude about Wall Street banks.

    The other way to do it is the way we did it in the 1930s. That was the fastest period of economic expansion in the last 100 years. The argument for that is the choice between the government paying people unemployment checks as they stay home and do nothing, or pay them a salary to get out and help build stuff. Either way, the government pays. It is just a question of what you get for your money.

    --David

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.