10 years on: Arab Spring led to waves of terrorism across Europe and elsewhere.

Discussion in 'Media & Commentators' started by James7, Apr 15, 2021.

  1. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    It's the tenth anniversary of The Arab Spring but the unfortunate fact is that it ultimately led to waves of terrorism across Europe and elsewhere.

    The Arab Spring in Syria led to a civil war and the civil war in Syria led to the rise of ISIS.

    Why does the Western media keep perpetuating the myth that the Arab Spring was a 'liberal democratic' uprising?
     
  2. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    During the Arab Spring we were also told that something special was happening in Tahrir Square, Cairo.

    But Egypt already had a liberal democracy and it ended up being toppled by Islamists.

    How could the western media be so false and misleading when reporting what was happening in Egypt?
     
  3. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Another opinion the media fed us about the Arab Spring was that it demonstrated the power of social media to bring about real change in society and democracy.

    However since then the narrative has changed somewhat. Now social media is something that is potentially dangerous and needs to be monitored and censored.

    It was the Arab Spring that directly led to the censorship of social media and the internet in the Islamic countries where it happened, and ultimately it was the Arab Spring that led to online censorship and privacy violations in the West as a direct response to the waves of Islamist terrorism.

    However the online censorship and privacy violations is the West hasn't just effected Islamic persons who happen to be living in the West, it has affected each and every citizen whatever their religious persuasion. It's as if we're ALL being accused of being potential terrorists.
     
  4. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    It is also the case that the Arab Spring caused civil wars in three separate countries: Syria, Libya and Yemen.

    We've all heard about the devastation and humanitarian crises cause in Syria and Yemen.

    In Libya, filling the void left by Gaddafi, were warring factions that included al Qaeda and ISIS.

    The entire security of the Middle East has been direly effected by the consequences of the Arab Spring.
     
  5. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any civil war resulting in State collapse is going to cause a refugee crisis. The fact that a domino effect resulted from Tunisia's original popular revolt simply reflects how arthritic, corrupt and incapable of responding to their populations needs most Arab regimes of the time had become. What is interesting is that the harshest, most dictatorial or dysfunctional regimes (Lybia and Syria) were the ones that suffered the worse revolts and collapses. There's a lesson there for all dictators.

    The other issue is of course that a large part of the refugee flow are actually economic refugees from other States that are simply using the 'holes' left in the world map where those collapsed States used to be as doorways to the west. When the former regimes were in place they (mostly) prevented this from happening as part of the cost of doing business with the West.
     
  6. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    With all due respect Monash, you fail to understand how things work in that region of the world. In fact you are repeating the same naive description of the Arab Spring purveyed by the media that I was criticizing in the first place.

    You fail to understand that a majority of the population in many of these societies WANT a religious government. Yes, they hate poverty and yes, they hate political oppression, but often the very reason why they feel oppressed is because they want a different kind of society than the one they are currently living under, i.e. they want a religious society.

    I visited Egypt as a tourist a few years before the Arab Spring and I remember a tourist publication mentioning the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was an illegal organisation and that no one spoke about them these days in Cairo. And also when you visited the various archaeological sites they were always protected by armed security against Islamist terrorists who presumably came from among the local population. But I would never have believed that a few years later these same people would form a government as a direct result of the Arab Spring.
     
  7. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree because I don't quite think you understood my meaning.

    It doesn't particularity matter what type of government the citizen involved the revolution prefer in the circumstances we are talking about because the results are the same regardless. A revolution can be started with the intention of installing any form of government be it socialist or communist, capitalist, religious or atheist etc. If the revolution fails the country may go through a period of instability but the governing power ultimately restores control and imposes order. But if the population 'wins'??

    In the absence of a preexisting opposition movement or party capable of offering alternate leadership from the onset or very early the end result (if the citizens win) is chaos because no-one ends up in control. And that's what happened in North Africa and Syria. There was no organized united opposition at the onset the revolt. It was unplanned and organic and the only thing uniting the revolutionaries was their hatred of the (then) current Government. Sheer momentum saw Gadaffi fall, nothing else.

    So it doesn't matter what form of new government the citizens of Libya might have wanted when the shooting stopped, religious or otherwise - there was simply no one in a position to offer it to them. No central cause to rally around (apart from getting rid of Gadaffi) and no opposition movement or leader with the popular moral authority necessary to provide transitional leadership afterwards.

    And the end result are the 'holes in the map' I talked about former counties where no-one ins in control and everything has to be rebuilt from scratch.
     
  8. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not really convinced by your "it doesn't really matter either way" argument.

    So you're saying it doesn't matter if a liberal democracy falls and a religious government takes its place?

    Really?

    There are a whole a load of problems with religious governments. They tend to foster extremism and a hatred for democratic liberalism.
     
  9. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who said anything about liberal democracies? My original post was a simply a comment to the effect that all civil wars regardless of the drivers produce refugee flows. Which is true.

    I then went on to point out that 'popular' revolutions could be categorized into one of two general categories. Call them organized and disorganized. An example of the former would be something like the Communist revolution of 1917. A preexisting organization or cause or just even a popular rallying figure motivates, plans, organizes and guides the revolution. Those features mean that if the 'revolution' is successful (if) there's an organization behind it with a plan of some sort for assuming overall control and re-building civil government once the fighting is over. For better or worse.

    A 'disorganized' revolution on the other hand is the opposite (and has worse outcomes). They tend to be spontaneous, usually don't have a central rallying cause or ideology (other than frustration with the existing regime) or a co-cohesive organization leadership structure directing it. As such its more of a cascade of mass civil disorder than a revolution. Libya and Syria are examples of the latter. No guiding authority in charge.

    And the result of those types of 'revolutions' are what we see in Libya and elsewhere. Failed States that by definition have no control over their own borders. Which by default also makes them magnets for anyone else seeking an easy route through to somewhere else, for whatever reason (innocent or malicious).

    So I think my point stands.

    I wasn't commenting on the benefits or failings of religiously 'based' governments. Mainly because I can't think of any functioning examples in recent history with the possible exception of one - Iran. Granted its hardly a glowing example of 'good government' but then I can say the same thing about a host of current non-religious governments as well.

    In fact if you examine history I think you'll most Governments with large/dominant religious minorities tend to be influenced by those minorities and adjust their policies accordingly . A modern example would be the current Indian Government and Hinduism. For that matter the evangelical Christian movement in the US had a huge (though declining) impact on the US political system over the the years. Which if nothing else proves that while the separation of church and state is arguably the ideal option it doesn't turn out to be so easy in practice.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2021
  10. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Mohamed Morsi's government in Egypt arguably was a religious one because he was an Islamist and affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Wherever ISIS have taken lands, they have formed a religious government. Their aim was to form a religious government in all of Syria and in Libya as well.
     
  11. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Firstly Moris's government attempted reforms which didn't succeed. 'Try' doesn't count. He didn't actually achieve anything and didn't last one term.

    Secondly while Morsi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) your equating the MB to ISIS without producing any facts corroborating this assertion. Ostensibly the MB has announced its support for democratically elected governments and political pluralism including the right to freedom of religion, albeit they would favor Muslim based political parties. Now you can believe those affirmations or not but that is the publicly stated position of the MB.

    In contrast ISIS on the other hand has always rejected and still rejects all three principals absolutely - as a matter of ideology. And has done so from the onset. That is a matter of public record - confirmed by both words and deeds. Nor have you presented any evidence showing that Morsi or the MB supported or publicly approved of the actions of ISIS in Syria or Iraq. (Kind of hard to do in Morsi's case because he was gone loooong before ISIS arrived on the scene.) So your trying to 'connect the dots' between them smacks something of desperation.

    So by reason of the above your arguments would appear to be based more on a personal ideological aversion to the idea of Islamic majority governments (in principal) rather than any specific form of government in an Islamic majority State. Which is a position you are free to adopt of course. Buit in the absence of concrete evidence supporting that viewpoint I see little or nothing more I can contribute .
     
  12. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Please point out where I directly compare the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS. I don't recall doing this.

    I wouldn't deny there are important differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, but then there are important similarities as well. For example the aim of both organisations is to install Sharia Law within the countries where they are active. ISIS uses the gun whereas the Muslim Brotherhood uses the ballot box.

    In reply to your rather blinkered assertion that, "Ostensibly the MB has announced its support for democratically elected governments and political pluralism including the right to freedom of religion.........", I quote the following paragraph from the Wikipedia page on the Muslim Brotherhood:

    And don't forget the following, that the Muslim Brotherhood has been declared a terrorist organisation within Egypt:

    Egypt declares Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation
     
  13. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its post 10. ' Mohamed Morsi's government in Egypt arguably was a religious one because he was an Islamist and affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Wherever ISIS have taken lands, they have formed a religious government. Their aim was to form a religious government in all of Syria and in Libya as well.'


    The post goes strait from talking about Morsi and the MB to ISIS with nothing in between. It reads as a direct comparison of the two. That may not have been the intention but without some kind of contrasting narrative between both statements it reads that way.

    So whats wrong with using the ballot box? That's the excepted method of obtaining government in liberal democracies. You can't argue that party X has no right to stand for election just because you don't like their platform (and no I wouldn't vote for a party that favored the implementation of Sharia law either). The litmus test for MB (and all parties) is what happens after they win office - most importantly, having won office via the popular vote do they continue to recognize the legitimacy of the popular vote at the next election and the one after that etc,etc. History is replete with governments that are elected to office then corrupt the electoral system to prevent any chance of their ever being voted out of office.

    Now that might have been what happened with MB in Egypt, it might not, they might have stayed true to their commitment to democratic elections. Point is we don't know because the opportunity to test them on that point never arose. So anyone who claims they wouldn't is just speculating.

    I read the insert and what the MB did at the time is no different to what the government that overthrew Morsi's did or for that matter Mubarak before him i.e use Presidential power to override the legislature and courts when deemed necessary. Its pretty much a 'pot to kettle' of Egyptian democracy. Don't believe me - try establishing a robust, viable opposition party of any sort in Egypt now and see what happens.

    Only in Arab countries not a single western nation including the US has banned then or declared them a terrorist organization. Which points to a dearth of evidence that they actually are a terrorist organization. And those countries that have banned them all have authoritarian governments (Bahrain, Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) which don't tolerate active political opposition. So their claims regarding the MB are questionable at best, mere propaganda at worst.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2021
  14. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    What I had produced was a LIST of countries/regions in which a Sharia/religious government had held sway outside of Iran in response to the point you had raised in #9, and it was therefore NOT a direct comparison between the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.

    Do you honestly think that Sharia law represents an ideal form of democracy? It's the exact opposite. In Sharia countries even talking about democracy and human rights can get you into serious trouble. That's why they got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after only a year since Morsi was obviously taking steps to make Sharia law a permanent feature in the country:

    I quote from the following article: Egyptian assembly passes draft constitution despite protests

     
  15. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you should make that clear in your post. I did state that 'It reads as a direct comparison of the two'. AND further; 'That may not have been the intention'.'

    Sorry but you need to clarify your argument a bit more clearly. As for your 'list of sharia law governments?

    1) Morsi never managed to actually impose Sharia Law in Egypt (fact). It may have been (and undoubtedly was) his ultimate goal but he never got the chance to do so. He barely lasted a year in office if that so Egypt doesn't count. And;

    2) ISIS did manage to impose Sharia law (it's version anyway) briefly during the middle of a civil war which saw it's 'State' collapse and be destroyed within two years. So apart from Iran we still have no example of a functioning State based on religious law.

    Note the underlined above and my previous comment; ' and no I wouldn't vote for a party that favored the implementation of Sharia law either'. Exactly what part of that statement do you find ambiguous re; my opinion of Sharia law?

    The thrust of my argument on this threat is that (1) you are habitually criticizing a boogie man (a functioning democratic Sharia law state) that doesn't exist.Aand (2) the measure of a democratic government is not its policies its whether or not in the end it upholds the core value of democracy and cedes power when defeated in fair elections.

    Sp, given the fact there is no functioning democratic, Sharia law practicing country in the world you've got nothing to base your opposition to such a State on except authoritarian regimes (like Saudi Arabia) who have never been democratic to start with (also fact).

    As for Egypt the people didn't 'get rid' of Morsi's government, the military did. Not the people the military. Just like they removed the regime before Mubarak. The removal of Morsi from power was not an expression of the will of the people. It was an expression of the will of the military and its backers in the Egyptian establishment who had the most to lose if Morsi overturned 'business as usual'. And acknowledging that is not an expression of wholesale support for Morsi or the MB on my part BTW. Its political reality in that country.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
  16. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Islamic societies aren't compatible with democratic governance, and it's a naive leftist delusion that they can be, or ever will be.

    Semi-totalitarian monarchies are the best governance Muslim nations can hope for, and, more often than not, a brutal, self-serving military-style dictatorship is necessary to maintain a semblance of law and order.

    When hardcore Islamic clerics are in charge, it's always a complete nightmare. Total anarchy is even better than that brand of insanity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
  17. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Possibly. There's certainly no extant examples of long standing liberal democracies in the Arab world although I will note that at the moment Tunisia seems to be trying hard to make it work. Time will tell.

    My argument is not that it can/will work, just that to date in history there has never really been an opportunity to prove whether it would work or not. And my issue with James is that he keeps promoting the idea that Islamic democracies are doomed to fail by quoting examples that either (a) have either been Islamic democracies in the first place or (b) as in the case of the the Morsi Government in Egypt never got the chance to prove itself one way or the other.

    So to prove whether or not they are compatible with each other we need a working Islamic democracy to be trialed. Perhaps Tunisia will be the test case. We'll see.
     
  18. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You seem to answer your own question as to what other examples of countries are there with Sharia law other than Iran?

    Saudi Arabia.

    And the following:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
  19. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The official logo of the Muslim Brotherhood is a little on the loud side:


    [​IMG]


    The Arabic word on the logo reads, "PREPARE". Which presumably means prepare for Sharia law.

    The Wiki page on the Muslim Brotherhood states that the organisation is supported by Saudi Arabia.
     
  20. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I said functioning democracies with sharia law. (i.e. a wholly Sharia law legal system with no other components.)

    Also your map is rubbish.

    Firstly Tunisia, does not have Sharia law as an official component of its legal system (fact). It was ejected by popular vote.
    Secondly most of the others are either;

    A) Not democracies.e.g. Saudi Arabia - (ergo they don't count)
    B) Failed States e.g. Yemen - (ergo they don't count)
    C) Have overriding national civil and criminal legal systems with elements of Sharia only in some limited areas (e.g Indonesia) - (ergo they don't count)

    So put the boogie man to bed. When we have a fully functioning Democratic State that practices Sharia law (full stop) we'll get to see if it remains democratic and functioning. Until then???
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
  21. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, you would know better having already told us that Iran was the ONLY country on the planet with a Sharia government!

    Sharia law in its full form is completely incompatible with democracy. It's like asking for an example of a country that has an absolute monarchy and a democracy both at the same time! There are watered down forms of Sharia law and countries that have both Sharia courts and secular courts, presumably because the country in question is developed enough and that Sharia law isn't sophisticated enough to cover the complex questions involving business or property law.
     
  22. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong. Re-read my posts. Once again Iran is not a functioning democracy. It wasn't one before the revolution and it didn't become one after it. As I said before, first: 'there are no extant examples of long standing liberal democracies in the Arab world although I will note that at the moment Tunisia seems to be trying hard to make it work ' and then

    Second; 'My argument is not that (a democracy with sharia law) can/will work, just that to date in history there has never really been an opportunity to prove whether it would work or not.

    So you keep saying without producing any proof. The difference between us is not that I insist it would work but rather that until such time as it is actually tried somewhere no conclusions can be reached. I want to see the evidence first before passing judgement.

    For the rest? Cart before horse. Most countries with 'mixed' western and sharia legal systems are the result of historical precedent. They were usually occupied by Britain or another colonial power and as such inherited the English or Napoleonic legal systems at the national level upon achieving independence, Sharia being practiced at the local community level. Hence the two systems.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2021
  23. James7

    James7 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2014
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with producing the evidence you refer to is that there is no complete list of all the articles of Sharia law available on the net.

    At most there are only partial lists available on marginal and fringe websites which aren't always good sources to quote.

    The fact that Sharia law is being hidden away in such a manner must say something in itself.
     
  24. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,516
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh Please. Now your just diving into 'conspiracy land'. You want to learn about Sharia law and its edicts? Then dive into English/Arabic websites addressing the topic where, logically you would expect to find it. Get outside you comfort zone.

    But regardless of the above point still stands - until such time as there is an example of a robust democratic State adopting Sharia Law we are not in a position to judge the outcome. Be suspect/dubious of the outcome? Yes. Make a definitive judgment one way or the other, in the absence of any evidence? No.
     

Share This Page