Arab Democracy... Thanks Dawood Kahn!

Silk Roads and Siamese Smiles

• THE JOURNEY SO FAR…
 
• ARCHIVES
 
• RSS FEED

BASHIR ASSAD, EGYPT, ISLAMIC SHARIA, MUBARAK, SYRIA

Arab “Democracy?”

In Middle East, Politics, thinking out loud on December 6, 2011 at 10:11 pm

Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria.  Revolutions are breaking out all over within the Arab world.

Egypt.  They wanted Mubarak out.  They say that they desire freedom.  Now, the likely scenario is that they vote in some form of Muslim Brotherhood-ish Islamic government.  A government that will most likely resemble Sunni version of the corrupt government of  Iran.

The Syrians are doing the same thing.  Protesting, demonstrating, rioting in order to get Assad out.  They say that they want freedom.

Yet again, they’ll more than likely get an Islamic Sharia form of Governance based on the model of Iran.

In Lybia, it’s more of the same.  Trading Qaddafi for Islamic Sharia.

Is Sharia as dictated by power mad fanatics considered freedom by the people of the Arab world?    Trading one form of tyranny for another

I just don’t see it.

I don’t see a difference between a Fundamentalist Islamic Government under Sharia law wherein all are forced to be “good Muslims” or be beaten, tortured or murdered and Stalinist or Maoist Communism.  I don’t see a difference between Mao and Khomeini.

Capitalism is definitely not perfect.  Even so, you get a fighting chance.  You get to make your own choices.  America may not be completely free.  Not as it once was.  Still, America has more freedom and more opportunity than most countries.  One can complain about America.  One can discount America with lies, hyperbole and propaganda.  Yet, the truth remains.  People from all over the world flee to America in order to join a country that has more freedom and opportunity than nearly any other country in the history of the world.

What is it that Arabs want?  What do Muslims want?  They say that they want freedom.  It seems to me they want the power to force others to be “good Muslims.”  They say that they want tolerance.  Yet, I do not see tolerance being shown to others by many people and especially by  governments who claim to be Islamic.

What of the Religious minorities in those countries?  Are they entitled to freedom and democracy as well?  Are they entitled to freedom of religion?  Are they entitled to freedom from religious persecution?   Or is it the feeling within the Arab Muslim World that only the regionally or nationally majority Muslims are entitled to Religious Freedom?

If any of you “good Muslims” want to explain, please feel free to do so in the comments section?  I am truly curious.

Like

Be the first to like this post.

▶ One Response

I like Newt! SamKat editorial

I like Newt Gingrich!  So, he now has  his third wife.  Is that such a criminal act?  Perhaps to some it is.  I am so lucky that Jeanie (Jeanette to some of her closest friends and family) and I have lasted 60 years together next month.  However, even that beauty can put me down and everybody knows of my innocence ... ?

I have read only two of Mr. Gingrich's books and two of obama's books.  The stark difference is striking to the American heart.  One is for the country's greatness and ways to preserve and enhance it and the other is doing everything to change it but not for the better.  It should be an easy choice next November for the American voters.

And, yes, I am a Tea Party person without a lot of financial  reources in my retirement to fully support their money needs.  If you can, I urge you to do so.

Columbus Dispatch 12-4-2011 Thanks Doug Brooke!!

READ AND PASS ON...

Empty words

After plunging nation far deeper in debt, president has no fiscal credibility

ShareThis

Each year he has been in office, President Barack Obama has presided over another $1 trillion addition to the U.S. national debt, which now exceeds $15 trillion.
For fiscal 2009, the deficit was $1.41 trillion. For 2010 it was $1.29 trillion and for 2011, it was another $1.29 trillion. That’s about $4 trillion added on his watch.
This is the president who appointed and then ignored his own debt panel, which sought to trim $4 trillion from the nation’s debt over a decade. Then he offered no help to a congressional panel that tried to cut $1.2 trillion in debt over a decade.
So, having dramatically deepened the fiscal mire of the nation, and conspicuously declined to support bipartisan efforts to address the problem, the president now campaigns across the nation, blaming it on Republicans.
He throws in a heaping helping of class warfare by claiming that the wealthy are not shouldering their “fair share” of the fiscal burden, despite the fact that the top
1 percent of income earners pay almost 40 percent of all the income-tax revenue collected by the Internal Revenue Service, while the top 5 percent pay almost 60 percent. Meanwhile, about 46 percent of income earners pay no federal income tax.
Reasonable people may disagree about how much the affluent should pay, and a progressive tax system naturally will excuse many low-income earners from paying any income tax. But to claim that currently the affluent are shirking is nonsense. Especially when the person pointing the finger of blame has pushed the nation further into debt faster than any other president, including the profligate George W. Bush. The nation’s revenue problem wouldn’t be so large if it weren’t for the current spender in chief.
On Thursday, after Senate Republicans declined to renew the payroll-tax cut, he said, “Now is the time to put country before party and work together on behalf of the American people. And I will continue to urge Congress to stop playing politics with the security of millions of American families and small business owners to get this done.”
But whatever the merits of easing the burden on taxpayers, it is equally valid to argue that reducing the payroll tax that supports Social Security also undermines the security of millions of Americans who rely on this entitlement, which already is headed for insolvency. And what exactly does the president think that $4 trillion in additional national debt does to the security of millions of American families, including the children who will be saddled with this debt for decades to come?
His words would carry more weight if the president led by example. But the president who adds another $1 trillion to the nation’s indebtedness each time he produces another federal budget is no position to lecture others about fiscal responsibility.
And as for playing politics, nobody is doing this more devotedly than the president. These days he is not working with others on behalf of the American people, he is deflecting blame and sowing division in the hopes of benefiting just one American — the one who is seeking re-election to the White House.