Submit your comments on this article | |
Africa North | |
No to America and No to Radical Islam | |
2012-03-23 | |
Thousands took to the streets of Tunisia's capital Tunis yesterday to celebrate the end of French colonial rule in 1956. As one might expect on independence day, most were in an anti-imperialist mood. Who are the "imperialists" in the Tunisian imagination today? Not the French. Not anymore. The "imperialists" of today are the United States and, oddly enough, Qatar. Both are seen, fairly or not, as the backers of Tunisia's Islamists. "No to America, no to Qatar, the people of Tunisia will always be free." | |
Posted by:trailing wife |
#7 "I have read this in a few places that US back Islamist takeovers.I dont understand how US would gain from having MB or salfists in control." It is the logical consequence of the 'War on Terror' approach. The West makes political concessions to islamofascists who do not employ the method 'terrorism' in order to weaken those islamofascists who do. When they understand that they can get their way without 'terrorism' then 'terrorism' will cease and the WoT will be 'won.' </sarc> |
Posted by: Herb Phavick7554 2012-03-23 22:26 |
#6 "I have read this in a few places that US back Islamist takeovers.I dont understand how US would gain from having MB or salfists in control." We don't gain and, in fact, Obama, Hillary and company were almost certain that the Salafists wouldn't gain even partial control. However, because the arab world lives in a cocoon of conspiracy theories, secularists in countries taken over by islamists believe in the conspiracty du jour. |
Posted by: Lord Garth 2012-03-23 12:15 |
#5 I have read this in a few places that US back Islamist takeovers.I dont understand how US would gain from having MB or salfists in control. I don't think the outcome was intended, Spats Slath4746. Rather, the clever men in the White House saw the romance of a "people's revolution" and ran with it without thinking of possible consequences. At the time I sincerely believed that, in Egypt at least, the Muslim Brotherhood would let the secularists take the fall for the inevitable economic crash, then take over afterward, so I was wrong, too. I think they've made a mistake in going for power immediately although, like in Iran, it may take two generations for them to thoroughly discredit the idea of Islamic rule. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2012-03-23 09:02 |
#4 We don't. But the progressive Left does. There's your answer. |
Posted by: Steve White 2012-03-23 08:54 |
#3 Spats, that exactly why I was confused when Obama backed the revolution in Egypt. It was obvious from the beginning that the MB was the only political group in the country that was half-ass organized. The answer is that there must be a desire on the administration's part to prefer such Islamist governments to the military dictatorships that the Republicans traditionally cozy up to. |
Posted by: Kentucky Beef 2012-03-23 08:47 |
#2 I have read this in a few places that US back Islamist takeovers.I dont understand how US would gain from having MB or salfists in control. |
Posted by: Spats Slath4746 2012-03-23 06:29 |
#1 Ah yes, once again BASE-TOO-FAR QATAR!? |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-03-23 00:49 |