• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Its NOT Democracy in Egypt its Radical Sharia Law

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Why does the US Media keep trying to tell us that the "unrest" in the middle east is a wave of emerging DEMOCRACY. I have seen very little evidence of any form of democratic movement in any of the nations that are having riots. No question they are trying to throw over dictators, some semi-benign (Mubarek) and others totally toxic (Quadaffi). But where is the evidence of a sort of love of democracy or move toward democracy?

What I see are constant signs of radical Muslims trying to overthrow whoever is in power and replacing them with Shiara law.

Just one of many stories about the lack of democracy, the lack of tolerance, the lack of any move toward openness.
From the AP => http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt
Christians and Muslims clash in Cairo, 1 dead

CAIRO – Thousands of Christians and Muslims clashed Tuesday, with one Christian man killed and scores wounded as anger rose over the burning of a church in a Cairo suburb.

It was the second burst of sectarian fighting in as many days and the latest in a string of violent protests over a variety of topics as simmering unrest continues nearly a month after mass protests led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

The violence erupted after Coptic Christians held protests in several locations in Cairo against perceived persecution by the country's Muslim majority.

The Christians have been angered by last week's burning by a Muslim mob of a church in a Cairo suburb. . .

So why won't the US Media admit what is actually happening :hammer:
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Definition of DEMOCRACY

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2
: a political unit that has a democratic government

3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States

4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

So if Sharia Law is their choice it is a democracy but then I sure wouldn't wont to live under it.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe, not to nitpick but none of those definitions fit a theocracy, which is what Shiara law would impose.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Well lets look at it this way. By the definitions it is the rule of the majority of the people is what a democracy is. Now with that said if the majority want to have Shiara law then it is a democratic theocracy.

The US by the way is a republic which is by rule of law with no absolute total rule by a majority unlike a democracy. Hence we have a system where being in a majority doesn't give one absolute rights even when passing laws.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
But Shiara law is not a democratic theocracy, but rather a dictatorial theocracy ruled by a supreme religious leader and a leader class. So it cannot be democratic. It sets up classes, it disallows citizen input, and there is no power vested in the people. Those are all criteria that you indicate are required by definition.

I'm simply asking why the media keeps reporting this as a DEMOCRATIC movement when it clearly is NOT.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Yes you are correct as far as what Shiara law is however if that is what the majority vote for, then it is a democracy also. A democracy is really majority rule nothing more nothing less regardless.

Now if the US was a true democracy then I'm sure we would also have a theocracy under christian laws. We however started out with a bill of rights and a constitution that setup a Republic that doesn't have the word democracy anywhere in the documents. In other words a majority can't force their will on a minority unless it is allowed under the constitution which is very hard to modify. Either way a democracy is a heart beat away from anarchy or a dictatorship so be glad we don't have either one luckily.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
So by using your logic, the terror reign of Stalin was actually democratic because at the root of it was a populist overthrow of the Czars.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
You are missing my point completely which is not unusual here.

At any rate as long as the people get a vote periodically or what ever system they decide on they have a democracy. Now if the majority wants a dictatorship, theocracy, socialism or what ever it is their choice and as a sovereign nation. This boils down to a simple situation it is their problem not ours, nor should it be. Now do they have something we can't live without? Perhaps oil, well maybe it is time for the US to think inwards instead of world domination which seems to be our current MO.

Now you are free to throw some more none examples at me. I know you are smart enough to understand this perhaps your emotions are getting in the way of simple logic and terms used to describe those political movements.
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe,

I have to disagree with you on this one. To be any sot of "democratic" movement even your own definition (with which I agree, BTW) requires a majority of the people to be in favor of the form of their government; the move toward a Sharia-based government is not a majority effort but rather a push by an armed segment that is willing to use whatever level of violence is necessary to achieve their goal.

Unfortunately, the Islamic Supremacists have a good chance of winning, as they are willing to use tactics that their opponents are not. I pray it doesn't happen.

 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Joe,

I have to disagree with you on this one. To be any sot of "democratic" movement even your own definition (with which I agree, BTW) requires a majority of the people to be in favor of the form of their government; the move toward a Sharia-based government is not a majority effort but rather a push by an armed segment that is willing to use whatever level of violence is necessary to achieve their goal.

Unfortunately, the Islamic Supremacists have a good chance of winning, as they are willing to use tactics that their opponents are not. I pray it doesn't happen.


As someone that spent a couple of years in this area of the world, granted in the early 80's I feel once these people get out from under dictatorships they won't choose a religious dictatorship. Now this is based on my personal opinion, however it has been a long time and as you know time changes many things. So today all I can say is the USA or us ought to give them a chance to try regardless of the out come. Besides in all honesty we have no say over any nation other than our own. Just my opinion on this regardless, as I could be completely wrong or right same as every one else with an opinion on it.
 
Top