Egyptians, Jordanians hold anti-peace rallies

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, that's democracy for you: it has side effects. Like getting people in power who don't share your views.

no, the real problem occurs when a country's majority is willing to kill those who don't share their religious beliefs.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, voters backing imperialist wars are way superior.

no, thay are bad also

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, voters backing imperialist wars are way superior.

no, they are bad also

But, wait, does that mean the US should not have a democracy?

 

when was the last US imperialist war... 

attempting to save Vietnam and NKorea from communism and allow it to remain a democracy?  try again...

throwing Saddam out of Kuwait in '91?  wrong...

Bush's naive attempt to make Iraq a beacon of democracy to the Muslim world?  get real...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, voters backing imperialist wars are way superior.

no, they are bad also

But, wait, does that mean the US should not have a democracy?

 

when was the last US imperialist war... 

attempting to save Vietnam and NKorea from communism and allow it to remain a democracy?  try again...

throwing Saddam out of Kuwait in '91?  wrong...

Bush's naive attempt to make Iraq a beacon of democracy to the Muslim world?  get real...

Afghanistan, Iraq, American involvement in Nicaragua and Grenada,...

Vietnam was either an Imperialist or an ideological war (which supposedly is better than religious violence?). Also  Southern Vietnam a democracy? My dear, you shouldn't make me luagh.

Bush gave the Taliban in Afghan a choice, even after 9/11, just as he did Pakistan (who had been supporting the Taliban takeover of Afghan), but Afghan refused to stop protecting OBL and Al Qaeda, and so we invaded.  But Bush attempted to put in place a democracy in Afghan, as he did in Iraq, hardly an imperialistic move.

Now, I supported both wars, but I never supported the occupations and attempts to establish democracy….not that I am against occupation to establish democracy, but rather because I understand religion and understand that a religion not supportive of freedom of religion is NOT compatible with a sustained peaceful democracy, therefore I viewed Bush’s attempt as extremely naive.

And your attempt to portray the US side of the cold war as imperialistic is really a joke.  Even during WWII, we rebuilt the countries that attacked us and instituted self-rule.

Maybe you should go and live a year in Iraq, Afghan, NKorea, and Cuba…because you certainly need an education in what is worth fighting for, you hack.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

which reminds me....when Bush was attempting to institute democracy in Iraq, Chris Matthews and I were on the same page because Matthews would have guest after guest who talked about how implanting democracy in ME wouldn't last more than a couple of election cycles because the populous would vote for sharia law and that would be the end of democracy.

But I havent listened to Matthews lately, did he say the same thing about the Arab Spring or did he side with the Muslim Street? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I have to express my admiration for your 'Muhammed as a mass murderer' rhetoric, which I haven't come across before. But the rest of your argument seems to me to go as follows (my comments/refutations in bold)

P1: Democracy is only to be desired when it leads to more Freedom (One could argue that the mere institution of Democracy embodies 'more Freedom', so this seems like a weak point to me)
P2: Islam and Freedom are incompatible (Because a) Christianity's excellent track record on this Freedom stuff before 1800 and b) we all know that all Muslims are entirely defined by their religion, at least as completely as I, jmfcst, am by mine)
P3: (From P2) If Muslims would get the right to vote, the results would be catastophic (Again, if you actually believe that the new regimes will actually have their population's voice play a role in their Foreign Policy, then you're having a wrong image of how International Politics work. Last time I heard the UK did in fact participate in the Iraq invasion)
C. (From all of the above, by ways of a slightly shady MPP) Democracy in the Muslim world is not desirable. (Which means you don't think Democracy is a basic human right. Or that you don't think Muslims are human. Both seem likely)

If you’ve ever read any of my posts, you would know that I am especially against the merging of Christianity and the State, and have used the bloody history of the Christian church as an example of the dangers of a state-run religion.

Up to 80% of Egyptians want sharia law.  So, what, exactly, is value of democracy if it takes away the right to dissent by stripping away the freedom of religion/speech/press/assembly?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Up to 80% of Muslims want Sharia law? Do you even have an inkling of the Egyptian public mood? At least try to do so.
 

And Sharia law doesn't mean what you think it means.

you're defending Sharia law?!  wow, how the debate has degraded into insanity.

I'm pretty sure sharia laws means death to aduterers, theives, those who leave Islam, and just about anyone they want to kill.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/features/news/poll-most-muslim-countries-want-sharia-law/

http://new.arabianbusiness.com/egyptians-back-sharia-law-end-of-israel-treaty-poll-shows-396178.html?tab=Article

http://www.marshallfrank.com/articles/2011/02/egypt-pew-poll-says-it-all/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109072/many-turks-iranians-egyptians-link-sharia-justice.aspx


Welcome to the real world, the one beyond all the PC coming from a long list of US presidents who call Islam a religion of peace.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This jmfcst character knows that there are multiple schools of fiqh ranging from the totally insane (Wahhabi) to the simply conservative by Western standards (Hanafi), right?

Hahaha, Nathan, you don't think jmfcst is actually interested in what them musulmans actually do or think, do you?

jmfcst is interested in the sum of the parts, i.e. the whole picture.

are you saying these polls are inaccurate?  seems to me, you're the one living in a fantasy

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This jmfcst character knows that there are multiple schools of fiqh ranging from the totally insane (Wahhabi) to the simply conservative by Western standards (Hanafi), right?

Hahaha, Nathan, you don't think jmfcst is actually interested in what them musulmans actually do or think, do you?

I'm new. I don't know very well who he is. He seems a little...I believe the term of art is 'wack', though.

are you saying these polls are inaccurate?  seems to me, you're the one living in a fantasy

If the polls are about sharia law, wouldn't it behoove you to research which school or schools of fiqh the specific populations in question might be talking about when they talk about sharia law? Egypt is mostly Hanafi.

then why dont you explain to us how beautiful and peaceful the Hanafi version of Sharia Law is?