Moments in Egyptian History #1

A few weeks ago one of my friends who works in an egyptian newspaper showed me archived copies of Newspapers and magazines 50 years ago. The year was 1956, the year of the Suez War, and the following was reportedly seen to my astonishment:

1) A story of the rising religious teachings in Egyptian mosques, showing a picture of 20 year old guys and girls sitting in a mosque during a religious lesson, side by side, and the girls aren’t covering the hair, and are wearing dresses that are showing *gasp* their arms.

2) A Stella beer ad that says “Drink Stella, it’s good for your health!”

3) A letter to the editor protesting a poll taken at an egyptian university, that showed that 70% of the people polled said they didn’t believe in God and didn’t regard religion as important. The letter said the fact that President Nasser called for the resistance to the anglo-franco-israeli agression from the pulpits of mosques and churches showcases the importance of religion in our society. (This in the first time, I think, where God gains credibility by being assciated to a leader, and not vice versa)

4) A news story on how the famous egyptian bellydancer Samia Gammal is volunteering her services to the army, and have been sent to the frontline to entertain the troops.

5) A picture of the other really famous bellydancer, Tahhiya Karyoka, actually planting the egyptian flag in Suez.

Oh, how the times have changed!

0 comment on Moments in Egyptian History #1

  1. saudi dude
    December 13, 2006 at 10:17 am

    The unfortunate truth is that religious zeal is rising as a global trend around the world, and continues to do so.

    Since I’m sure someone will comment on the fact I’m Saudi and try to link Saudi Arabia as a cause of this rise, or link it to terrorism etc.. Saudi society at that time however, and until the 80s before the Islamic revolution in Iran, was not as religious as it is today. It was still conservative, but it was so in traditional sense, not a religious one. So for example many non Saudi women never wore the “Abaya” (the black robe forced on women in Saudi Arabia today) during that time even outdoors in public, which is something you’ll never see unfortunately today.

    The fact that the west’s new boogy man is “Islamofacism” as president Bush would term it (a ridiculous and technically incorrect name) only hightens this zeal, and unless a secular ideology which directly challenges the west’s current ideology arrises, the same way communism was to captilsm, this zeal will simply continue to grow.

    The 60s were a lot more beautiful than today. Pity we have to live in this generation with its shallow fears and contemprary cultures.

    Reply
  2. Amgad
    December 13, 2006 at 11:54 am

    It is true that the Islamic revolution in Iran gave a lot of momentum to political Islamic movements like the MBs. However during the 60th , long before this revolution, the MBs where growing in power and wealth thanks to Saudi assistance. Moreover, this backward revolution in the Arab and Muslim societies was catalyzed by teachings of salfi sheiks of Arabia available everywhere in the Arab and Muslim countries thanks to the petrodollars, in addition to the feelings of inferiority these preachers instilled in the millions of Arab and Muslim workers in Arabia who felt like heretics and apostates in comparison with the “pure” Islamic society of the kingdom.

    Reply
  3. Antoine
    December 13, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    I´ve seen girls in bikini clad at the beach in Alexandria in the 80s.

    Reply
  4. Dan
    December 13, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    “The 60s were a lot more beautiful than today. Pity we have to live in this generation with its shallow fears and contemprary cultures.”

    So true bro. I’m saddened to see it like this :(

    Reply
  5. I_Caca_dau
    December 13, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    Is it any surpirse that Egypt lost the war in 1967?
    Looks like the president at the time was treating the war as a big show, and he didnt even have plan for fighting the war.
    The Israelis sure taught him a lesson.

    Reply
  6. Antoine
    December 13, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    I had some beers at Le Café Riche too.

    Reply
  7. Luigi_Aronson
    December 13, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Here’s my question.

    When you read stories about the arab secularists of the 60s, one wonders where these sixty something year olds are today. Did they all become born again muslims and raise their kids that way?

    I’m guessing they did two things. Either emigrated to the West, or stayed in Egypt and only had one child while everyone else had twelve.

    By the way, if I was an Egyptian going with Nasser to Cuba I would have tried to get an embassy job there.

    Reply
  8. HeiGou
    December 13, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    saudi dude Says:”The unfortunate truth is that religious zeal is rising as a global trend around the world, and continues to do so.”

    Well no it is not. It is unfortunate, I’ll grant, but the rise of religious zeal is not a global trend. It is a trend among the believers of one particular religion and only that religion produces zealous believers who are any trouble to anyone else at all. Can you guess which religion that is?

    saudi dude Says:”Since I’m sure someone will comment on the fact I’m Saudi and try to link Saudi Arabia as a cause of this rise, or link it to terrorism etc.”

    Damn right. Saudis have funded Salafi schools and texts. They have provided shelter for Fundamentalists such as Sayyid Qutb’s brother.

    saudi dude Says:”The fact that the west’s new boogy man is “Islamofacism” as president Bush would term it (a ridiculous and technically incorrect name) only hightens this zeal, and unless a secular ideology which directly challenges the west’s current ideology arrises, the same way communism was to captilsm, this zeal will simply continue to grow.”

    Why do you think it is ridiculous and technically incorrect? It looks right on the money to me. Heightens the zeal? Tell me, how do you deal with people who want to cut off your head except by fighting them? Since when does lying down and presenting your throat to be cut do anything other than encourage people to cut your throat? The fact is the West is not fighting hard enough against Islamic radicalism. The zeal will continue to grow as long as Muslims continue to hate and continue to seek someone else to blame for their own faults. What the West does is utterly irrelevant.

    saudi dude Says:”The 60s were a lot more beautiful than today. Pity we have to live in this generation with its shallow fears and contemprary cultures.”

    You all made your bed. Now you have to lie in it. I hate to sound rude and uncaring, but can you guess how much I care? Your problem. You fix it or learn to live with it.

    Reply
  9. AF
    December 13, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    “Well no it is not. It is unfortunate, I’ll grant, but the rise of religious zeal is not a global trend. It is a trend among the believers of one particular religion and only that religion produces zealous believers who are any trouble to anyone else at all. Can you guess which religion that is?”

    Hmmm,i can’t, maybe you are referring to George Bush’s neocon evangelists and their impatient wait for christ’s return? or maybe u r not, i am not sure.

    Reply
  10. HeiGou
    December 13, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    AF Says:”Hmmm,i can’t, maybe you are referring to George Bush’s neocon evangelists and their impatient wait for christ’s return? or maybe u r not, i am not sure.”

    You know there is probably a special circle of Hell reserved for teens who think they are saying something clever and funny when they are just being fatuous.

    The Neo-Cons, as everyone knows, are part of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy and even those of them that aren’t, you know, Jews, tend to be distinctly non-religious. Try to name a single Neo-Con who is waiting for Christ’s return.

    The Theo-Cons may well be religious but when was the last time a single one of them killed anyone of note (the odd abortion doctor aside)?

    Reply
  11. BrooklynJon
    December 14, 2006 at 12:23 am

    “You know there is probably a special circle of Hell reserved for teens who think they are saying something clever and funny when they are just being fatuous.”

    LOL! I mean really!

    Hei, Dontcha know? “Neocon” is code for “Jew”. And all Jews are part of the International Jewish Conspiracy. Judaism has nothing to do with G-d or religion. It’s all some Dr. Evil – esque plot to take over the world. Muahahahahaha!

    And EVERYBODY knows 9/11 was a joint Buddhist/Shinto strike with Jain financial backing, orchestrated by the Mossad. I tell ya, those Jains are nuts! And getting nuttier all the time! If only they ate just a little meat every now and again…

    Reply
  12. tate
    December 14, 2006 at 4:26 am

    HeiGou, ever hear of the Oaklahoma City bombing? How about the bombing at the Atlanta Olympic games? Both done by American fundamentalist Christians.
    Or to go more global, Hindu fundamentalists in Gujarat?
    Fundamentalist religious movements are reactions to modernity which are occuring world wide. It is less extreme in counties where people have other avenues through which to express their discontent, but it’s still going on.

    Reply
  13. saudi dude
    December 14, 2006 at 5:57 am

    Dear Amgad. The result of what you’re saying “Al Kholasa” is that the ideologies have their origins from outside of Saudi Arabia (the Muslim Brotherhood – that’s what I’m guessing the MB refers to) but Saudi Arabia did support. That’s correct, however you neglect the role of President Sadat in promoting these Islamic ideologies to combat Nassirism (a reference to President Nassir) and in general the secular left. I would argue that specifically for Egyptian society that’s what was the main force behind the shift in attitudes, not the Saudi petrodollars as how you’d refer to them (and thus the general attitudes in egyptian society follow the MB, not the wahhabi movement). It’s also worth note that this promotion of the religious right also came from the west, specifically the United States, to combat Nassir and pan arabism in general as they represented the left.

    Dear HeiGou,

    The rising of religious zeal is a global trend through out the world. In the US I would argue that President Reagan’s policies specifically began this ultra religiousness. The policy makers themselves might not care, but the populous is definitely much more religious than it was a couple of decades ago, and the rising power of evangelicals as a political force serves as good evidence for that.

    As for Saudi involvement with terrorism, there are no proven links of any kind of direct or intentional funding of terrorist groups from the part of the Saudi government. If you have evidence which clearly illustrate and prove otherwise then please post them, although I doubt you do. As for its policies with Mr.Qutb’s brother and what not, the Saudi government never did anything outside of the umbrella of the US. Almost all Saudi policies regarding the support of political Isalmic groups was done under the support and guidance of the Americans, who viewed President Nassir as a threat to their interests in the region, as well as viewing the general pan arab and socialist/communist movements in the region as such. Therefore the US supported those religious groups in that era to counter any influence from the left which could threaten American interests in the region (e.g. Israel).

    As for the term “Islamofascisim”, it is technically incorrect since those two ideologies have elements within them that contradict each other. Specifically, fascism is ultra nationalistic, where as political Islamic groups are against any sort of nationalist sensations, and emphasize religion as the only bond connecting people, and not “mother Egypt” for example. That’s especially true of groups like Al Qaeda, and that’s why the term is technically incorrect. I also think it’s ridiculous since it’s very obvious to anyone who reads a bit about fascism

    Reply
  14. saudi dude
    December 14, 2006 at 6:00 am

    = I pressed the submit button by mistake, this is to continue where I left off =

    I also think it’s ridiculous since it’s very obvious to anyone who reads a bit about fascism and modern political Islamic groups that this term is technically incorrect, and yet is popularized at such a large scale without any regard to factuality.

    Reply
  15. saudi dude
    December 14, 2006 at 6:17 am

    = pressed submit again by mistake – this hopefully is the last part =

    I would also like to ask you, Mr HeiGou, who exactly created bin laden and all those isalmic groups, and supported them vehemently, going as far as calling them freedom fighters when they fought the Soviet union?

    Who overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran in the famous Ajax operation and replaced him with the dictator the Shah, whose ruthlessness later resulted in the Iranian revolution? and who then ordered his puppet Saddam to launch a war against the Iranians, which only strengthened the Islamists as people started turning towards god and religion in that time of strife, enabling the Islamists to dispose of all other movements, especially the secular left?

    These are simply some example of western intervention, and is a direct reply to your claim that we’re simply blaming others for our faults. You either don’t seem to realize how much the west has intervened and adjusted this region of the world during the last few decades, or simply choose to ignore that for your own political agenda. Therefore to frame the situation as muslims simply wanting the blame others for their own problems is ridiculous and simply put wrong.

    As to how deal with the threats from Al Qaeda and those organizations, the first step would be to stop US intervention in the region, with the latest example being the war it launched in Iraq. The US should also fully stop supporting Israel. The US should also stop giving support to dictators just because they serve its interest (look at how the US government has handled Al Qathafi, who suddenly became a peace loving man when he he started serving US interest).

    I guarantee you by following these steps Al Qaeda will cease to exist, and in general support will gradually deplete for Islamic groups in the middle east.

    Reply
  16. Kurt (Childe Roland)
    December 14, 2006 at 6:42 am

    “HeiGou, ever hear of the Oaklahoma City bombing? ”

    I can’t let this go unchallenged. Timothy McVeigh was an atheist and he mocked lame-o Christian types who tried to get him to “repent and avoid Hell.”

    ~Kurt

    Reply
  17. saudi dude
    December 14, 2006 at 8:21 am

    Dear Kurt, if you need evidence of christian terrorism check out the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA killed thousands of innocent civilians in the name of god, not to mention all their other atrocities which include forcing women to become sex slaves and forcing children to become soldiers. It operates in Uganda and is labeled inte

    Reply
  18. saudi dude
    December 14, 2006 at 8:25 am

    == I hate that submit comment button ==

    .. and is labeled interestingly as simply a rebel group since they’re fighting the Ugandan government, despite their intentional targeting of civilians and their tactics. But since it’s operations are in africa, its victims are african, and since it’s a christian group, it seems no one cares to notice. But I suppose had al qaeda not targeted the west, but say africa, no one would have noticed either. After all, the world revolves around the west only, and everything should be taken from the west’s perspective.

    Reply
  19. Kurt (Childe Roland)
    December 14, 2006 at 8:40 am

    Hey, I’m an atheist and I’m fully aware of Christian terrorists. In fact, I always bring up the LRA when people start spouting about how Christians are innocent lambs. I’m just tired of the “McVeigh was a Christian terrorist” trope. He was an atheist and had a purely secular/political agenda.

    ~Kurt

    Reply
  20. HeiGou
    December 14, 2006 at 10:06 am

    tate Says:”HeiGou, ever hear of the Oaklahoma City bombing? How about the bombing at the Atlanta Olympic games? Both done by American fundamentalist Christians.”

    Well no. McVeigh was not a Christian and I doubt that the Atlanta Olympics guy was either. Even if this were so, violent fundamentalist Christianity is in serious and long-term decline.

    tate Says:”Fundamentalist religious movements are reactions to modernity which are occuring world wide. It is less extreme in counties where people have other avenues through which to express their discontent, but it’s still going on.”

    Everything is a reaction to modernity, but if you mean something more specific than that, I am inclined to disagree. Again this is the sort of fatuous sound bite people like especially if they are in the Social Sciences. It makes us feel smug about ourselves but means nothing. It is simply not occurring worldwide. I could give you an argument about the BJP but it remains only a problem for one particular faith community.

    saudi dude Says:”That’s correct, however you neglect the role of President Sadat in promoting these Islamic ideologies to combat Nassirism (a reference to President Nassir) and in general the secular left.”

    Although Sadat’s role in supporting Islamists to combat the left and Nasirism is nothing compared to Saudi efforts – they set up international bodies like the OIC specifically to combat Nasirism and the Left.

    saudi dude Says:”It’s also worth note that this promotion of the religious right also came from the west, specifically the United States, to combat Nassir and pan arabism in general as they represented the left.”

    Sorry but when did the US give a red nickel to the religious extremists to combat anyone except the Saudis?

    saudi dude Says:”The rising of religious zeal is a global trend through out the world. In the US I would argue that President Reagan’s policies specifically began this ultra religiousness.”

    You can argue it all you like but Reagan, divorced, secular, husband to Nancy, is hardly a figure on the religious right. The US is not having a period of rising religious zeal. You may notice that abortion is still illegal. Gay marriage is on the agenda. Pornography has exploded. What you have in an increase in concern on the Left about the power of the religious right – that is a product of their decline (and hence lack of confidence and fears) not of the right’s rise.

    saudi dude Says:”The policy makers themselves might not care, but the populous is definitely much more religious than it was a couple of decades ago, and the rising power of evangelicals as a political force serves as good evidence for that.”

    I dispute the claim the population is more religious. As for the political force – the Religious Right could not even get a promise to seek a ban on abortion into the Contract with America. Given that the Religious Right has consistently lost every single argument since the mid-70s, how can you say they are powerful?

    saudi dude Says:”As for Saudi involvement with terrorism, there are no proven links of any kind of direct or intentional funding of terrorist groups from the part of the Saudi government. If you have evidence which clearly illustrate and prove otherwise then please post them, although I doubt you do.”

    I don’t think I claimed that the Saudis funded terrorism although I am perfectly happy to point out that for years the Saudis shovelled funds to the PLO and later to Hamas much of which, presumably, ended up funding terrorism. And they were also happy to turn a blind eye to private charities funding Islamic terrorism for many years. They probably still do.

    saudi dude Says:”Almost all Saudi policies regarding the support of political Isalmic groups was done under the support and guidance of the Americans, who viewed President Nassir as a threat to their interests in the region, as well as viewing the general pan arab and socialist/communist movements in the region as such.”

    Again this is just typical Arab blame-shifting. Instead of taking responsibility you seek shelter in a conspiracy theory. I have an alternative view – every thing the US did was done with the support of and under the guidance of the Saudis. America, unlike Britain, does not have a history of support for extreme religious groups. It never did so before. It has not done so since. It has not done so anywhere else in the world. The logical conclusion is that the Saudis guided them and they followed.

    saudi dude Says:”As for the term “Islamofascisim”, it is technically incorrect since those two ideologies have elements within them that contradict each other. Specifically, fascism is ultra nationalistic, where as political Islamic groups are against any sort of nationalist sensations, and emphasize religion as the only bond connecting people, and not “mother Egypt” for example. That’s especially true of groups like Al Qaeda, and that’s why the term is technically incorrect. I also think it’s ridiculous since it’s very obvious to anyone who reads a bit about fascism”

    Except Fascism, in its German Nazi-form, takes the Race over the State. If you replace the Race with the Ummah you end up with something similar. But in general I agree there are differences but there are always differences. There are differences between German and Italian fascism for instance. They are still clearly related. The Muslim Brotherhood, like a lot of Islamist groups, never hid their admiration for the fascists. I don’t see that there is enough of a contradiction here to negate the term.

    Reply
  21. HeiGou
    December 14, 2006 at 10:18 am

    saudi dude Says:”if you need evidence of christian terrorism check out the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA killed thousands of innocent civilians in the name of god, not to mention all their other atrocities which include forcing women to become sex slaves and forcing children to become soldiers. It operates in Uganda and is labeled inte == I hate that submit comment button == and is labeled interestingly as simply a rebel group since they’re fighting the Ugandan government, despite their intentional targeting of civilians and their tactics. But since it’s operations are in africa, its victims are african, and since it’s a christian group, it seems no one cares to notice. But I suppose had al qaeda not targeted the west, but say africa, no one would have noticed either. After all, the world revolves around the west only, and everything should be taken from the west’s perspective.”

    I have no problems with the LRA being described as Christian (although what do you have to do to be called non-Christian? They are weirder than the Alawis or Druze or Ahamadis are) or violent. There is an argument about whether what they are doing is terrorism or guerilla warfare though. They don’t blow up planes or buses or hotels. They fight in the countryside. There is a minor distinction. The West does not care not merely because they are African but because of that whole decolonisation thing. Africans get upset when the West meddles in their affairs – you notice the Africans are siding with the Sudanese government for instance. If Africans want to solve their own problems, well, they can solve their own problems. That is not to say the West has not noticed, it is just that you can’t do much except ban them from fund raising in the West.

    As it happens everything of any importance does happen in the West. Apart from terrorism. Don’t blame us for your utter irrelevance. If you want people to take notice of you all, do something to deserve it. Cure cancer or something. The whole of Africa’s external trade is less than Belgium’s. Africa gets more attention than it deserves.

    Reply
  22. Kurt (Childe Roland)
    December 14, 2006 at 11:06 am

    I’m sorry, but you have to be insane to think that the LRA isn’t a terrorist group. Along with their general attacks, they enjoy kidnapping and enslaving children, raping and killing women and girls, and cutting off lips and hands among other sundry mutilations and torture.

    You can’t call out Islamists for their atrocities and then pretend the LRA is just fighting a guerrilla war in the countryside.

    ~Kurt

    Reply
  23. Alif
    December 14, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Did you scan any of these?

    Reply
  24. HeiGou
    December 14, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    saudi dude Says:”I would also like to ask you, Mr HeiGou, who exactly created bin laden and all those isalmic groups, and supported them vehemently, going as far as calling them freedom fighters when they fought the Soviet union?”

    I dunno – Saudi Arabia? America did not create Bin Laden. They did not even give him any money. They did not support him or his group at all. The US may have referred to all the mujihadeed in Afghanistan as freedom fighters, as they were, but that was not specific to Bin Laden.

    saudi dude Says:”Who overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran in the famous Ajax operation and replaced him with the dictator the Shah, whose ruthlessness later resulted in the Iranian revolution?”

    Who cares? That was 50 years ago. Get over it. The fact you do not really care about Mossadegh or what the US did or did not do – after all coups is the natural way for Muslim governments to change. I don’t hear you complaining about Neguib being kicked out by Nasir, or all those coups in Syria. The fact is that Western leftists use this as a stick to hit America as if there was any other way for Muslim governments to change – or has ever been since the death of Muhammed. Coups are what Muslims do.

    saudi dude Says:”and who then ordered his puppet Saddam to launch a war against the Iranians, which only strengthened the Islamists as people started turning towards god and religion in that time of strife, enabling the Islamists to dispose of all other movements, especially the secular left?”

    Uh huh. Back with the paranoia again. Saddam was never an American puppet and only an insane conspiracy theorist could claim it was so. Nor did anyone order Saddam to attack Iran.

    saudi dude Says:”These are simply some example of western intervention, and is a direct reply to your claim that we’re simply blaming others for our faults. You either don’t seem to realize how much the west has intervened and adjusted this region of the world during the last few decades, or simply choose to ignore that for your own political agenda. Therefore to frame the situation as muslims simply wanting the blame others for their own problems is ridiculous and simply put wrong.”

    They are not examples of Western intervention or at least not ones worth mentioning. You are still simply blaming us for your problems especially with Saddam. The only thing the West has done in the Middle East is try to stop you all killing each other and invading each others’ countries. It is not in any way ridiculous and it is not put wrong – as your conspiracy theories show.

    saudi dude Says:”As to how deal with the threats from Al Qaeda and those organizations, the first step would be to stop US intervention in the region, with the latest example being the war it launched in Iraq.”

    Surrendering does not bring peace. Those people demand to be fought and it is better that they are fought in the Middle East than in the US.

    saudi dude Says:”The US should also fully stop supporting Israel.”

    Which is absurd. Israel is America’s only friend and again, surrendering does not bring peace. Nor does appeasement. This would only strenghten the Islamists because they could claim they had done it.

    saudi dude Says:”The US should also stop giving support to dictators just because they serve its interest (look at how the US government has handled Al Qathafi, who suddenly became a peace loving man when he he started serving US interest).”

    And yet the American policy must be to deal with whoever is there. If Arabs like to submit to assholes, America has to deal with those assholes. The alternative has been tried in Iraq and it did not work.

    saudi dude Says:”I guarantee you by following these steps Al Qaeda will cease to exist, and in general support will gradually deplete for Islamic groups in the middle east.”

    Bollocks. There was no Israel when the Muslims sacked Rome, or besieged Vienna or took Constantinople. There was not American intervention in the Middle East when Tripoli attacked American shipping and so gave the Marines their song. The fact is Muslims hate non-Muslims as a general rule. It is part of the Faith from what I can see. Whenever they are strong enough to do so, they will attack and kill the kafirs near them. The only solution is not retreat and appeasement.

    Reply
  25. HeiGou
    December 14, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Kurt (Childe Roland) Says:”I’m sorry, but you have to be insane to think that the LRA isn’t a terrorist group. Along with their general attacks, they enjoy kidnapping and enslaving children, raping and killing women and girls, and cutting off lips and hands among other sundry mutilations and torture. You can’t call out Islamists for their atrocities and then pretend the LRA is just fighting a guerrilla war in the countryside.”

    But atrocities can be commited by all sorts of people – guerillas, terrorists, conventional Armied Forces. Atrocities alone do not define who is or is not a terrorist. Notice that the LRA mostly inflicts these atrocities on their own people – not on other tribal groups. The terror is not an aim per se from what I can see, but a by-product of what they want to do. I am happy to condemn atrocities in their own category. And Terrorists in another separate one. The fact is the LRA is fighting a very nasty and brutal guerilla war in the countryside. It is too big to be a terrorist group and it does not use those tactics. But then maybe I am insane.

    Which raises the question – do you think Muhammed, who did pretty much all those things you listed from kidnapping and enslaving to chopping off body parts, was a terrorist?

    Reply
  26. Dan
    December 14, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    HeliGou is incapable of admitting the faults of the West’s foreign policies.

    He’s no different from the Muslims who cannot admit the faults of their own.

    What a dumbass. Too bad retards like him only exist online.

    Reply
  27. Jason
    December 15, 2006 at 3:52 am

    But Saudi Dude.. Islamofacist has a certain ring to it .. it kinda just rolls of the tongue .. truth or literally correctness has nothing on that :P

    Reply
  28. saudi dude
    December 15, 2006 at 9:36 am

    Dear HeiGou,

    In my opinion your post is filled with errors of fact. It’s a shame when you’re ideology allows you downplay a group such as the LRA while at the same time allows you to consider that all muslims just want to kill nonmuslims.

    About the term islamofascism, replacing one aspect with another does not mean it will work out automatically. Historically if you look over all fascist groups you will notice that the key element which all share is ultranationalism, which is something that simply does not exist with all the political Islam groups around the world as they view it inherently opposed to the bond of Islamic brotherhood.

    As for western support of Islamic groups, it was the cia that armed and trained bin laden and all those mujahdeen groups, or rather as they were known back then “Freedom Fighters”. This is a pretty well known fact, which numerous publications from books to documentaries, which show how the Americans provided those “freedom fighters” with everything from money to RPG missiles that they trained them to use. A simple search on google will confirm this for you.

    As for Saddam’s relationship with the Americans, you can read more about it here :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ . The US also sold weapons to Iran in the face Iran-Contra affair, for which fox TV host Oliver North was involved, thereby enticing that useless war and extending it, not to mention of course the atrocity of supporting the Conrta group in Nicaragua and all the innocents deaths and destruction that lead, but that’s another story anyway of US interference around the world.

    As for who cares about 50 years ago, well you seem to be bringing up historical events that happened centuries ago such as taking Constantinople (which western warriors sacked anyway a bit before that during the crusades), so why shouldn’t we care about something that happened just half a century ago? That is beside the fact that this event has direct effects that are still seen today, and had it not been for that Iran would have been a very, very different country today, and the Islamic revolution probably would have never happened.

    I don’t have to go into how bigoted your statement regarding how muslim governments only change by coups is, or the fact there are counter examples to this such as Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia, but I would rather focus on your disregard of the fact that Mohammed Mossadegh was elected. This negligence can only indicate you have no regards of any human value in muslims, which if anything I believe reflects on your ideology of hate and intolerance.

    You also seem to be getting historical facts wrong. When exactly did muslims sack Rome?

    Besides if you’re going to bring up something this old, I might as well bring up the crusades and the sack of Jerusalem by the crusaders, not to mention their occupation which lasted for more than two centuries. We could even dwell further in history and bring about the Romans and Greeks, and how they basically had annexed most of the territories that form the muslim world today. Granted that Islam was not born yet, but there were still those same regions, and there were still people in them, whose descendants are muslim now.

    And who did Muhammed kidnap or chop body parts off? It’s true there was slavery, but that was back in 600s AD, not the second millennium. If by chopping body parts off you mean beheadings, that was the method of execution employed back then with their equipments, and it certainly is isn’t as bad as “Hanging, drawing and quartering”, which was the punishment carried out in England for treason until the 1800s.

    As for the LRA, the fact you don’t seem to care about the time frame and your refusal to consider it a terrorist group proves that you really don’t give much regard to truth or reality, nor are you seeking them in the first place, but that you are simply operating out of blind ideology.

    I’m sure you will reply and try to refute my points, but I would like make it clear I will not reply anymore, and I apologize for that. It’s just that this is proving post by post to be a useless discussion.

    Reply
  29. HeiGou
    December 15, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    Dan Says:”HeliGou is incapable of admitting the faults of the West’s foreign policies. He’s no different from the Muslims who cannot admit the faults of their own. What a dumbass. Too bad retards like him only exist online.”

    When the West screws up I am happy to admit it. It is just that the faults of the Middle East are more or less entirely of their own making. Denying that may make you less of a dumbass than me, but it does not change that basic fact. Egyptian police do not beat suspects because I make them. They do because the Egyptian public tolerates them doing so.

    saudi dude Says:”In my opinion your post is filled with errors of fact. It’s a shame when you’re ideology allows you downplay a group such as the LRA while at the same time allows you to consider that all muslims just want to kill nonmuslims.”

    I do not downplay the LRA. I am happy to admit they are vile butchering mass murdering scum. I just don’t think they blow up airplanes. Different in type is not the same as different in nature. Nor do I think that all Muslims want to kill non-Muslims. I think a lot of them are not very religious. But I think the vast majority are not sorry when others kill non-Muslims – try to find a single Muslim author expressing regret or distaste at the killing of kafirs by Muslims.

    saudi dude Says:”Historically if you look over all fascist groups you will notice that the key element which all share is ultranationalism”

    Again I will point out that for the Germans race replaced nationalism – or at least shaped their definition of nationalism so that an ethnic German who had never been ot Germany was German in a way that a German Jew born and bred in Germany was not. The Ummah plays a similar role for some Muslims.

    saudi dude Says:”As for western support of Islamic groups, it was the cia that armed and trained bin laden and all those mujahdeen groups, or rather as they were known back then “Freedom Fighters”.”

    No it is not. The CIA did not give a cent to Bin Laden. They gave support to Pakistan which gave support to a range of mujihadeen groups but there is no evidence Bin Laden was one.

    saudi dude Says:”As for Saddam’s relationship with the Americans, you can read more about it here :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ .”

    I see no evidence whatsoever on that site to justify your claims that Iraq was ordered by the US to invade Iran – or that the US supported Saddam to any real extent.

    saudi dude Says:”As for who cares about 50 years ago, well you seem to be bringing up historical events that happened centuries ago such as taking Constantinople (which western warriors sacked anyway a bit before that during the crusades), so why shouldn’t we care about something that happened just half a century ago? That is beside the fact that this event has direct effects that are still seen today, and had it not been for that Iran would have been a very, very different country today, and the Islamic revolution probably would have never happened.”

    Because the sacking of Western cities by Muslims is not a recent or normal occurence. The replacement of one Muslim government by another through military coup *is* normal. This is how the majority of Middle Eastern states change governments. Why single out this one among the hundreds that have taken place in the last 50 years? It cannot be the simple fact of the coup or you would be outraged by Syrian history. You are not. Therefore something else motivates you. What? There is no evidence that Iran would be any different in any way whatsoever. Nor that the Islamic revolution would not have taken place.

    saudi dude Says:”I don’t have to go into how bigoted your statement regarding how muslim governments only change by coups is, or the fact there are counter examples to this such as Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia, but I would rather focus on your disregard of the fact that Mohammed Mossadegh was elected.”

    I fully accept that Moosadegh was elected although as he got less popular he dismissed Parliamentary government and tried his own coup. Turkey? No coups in Turkey? Come on. Who are you kidding? Indonesia? You’re trying to be funny aren’t you? Malaysia is the only one where you could make a case. I do not argue coups are the only way, just the main way. Which two seconds of study in the Middle East will show.

    saudi dude Says:”You also seem to be getting historical facts wrong. When exactly did muslims sack Rome?”

    846.

    saudi dude Says:”Besides if you’re going to bring up something this old, I might as well bring up the crusades and the sack of Jerusalem by the crusaders, not to mention their occupation which lasted for more than two centuries.”

    Occupation? You mean Liberation.

    saudi dude Says:”We could even dwell further in history and bring about the Romans and Greeks, and how they basically had annexed most of the territories that form the muslim world today. Granted that Islam was not born yet, but there were still those same regions, and there were still people in them, whose descendants are muslim now.”

    There is no evidence for that last claim at all. Syria had an Arab population, but the vast majority of Arabs across the Arab world have always claimed descent from Yemen or the North of Arabia. There is precisely no evidence whatsoever that the present population of the Middle East is descended from the Jews and Christians who were conquered by the Arabs – except of course for the Jews and Christians. Egyptian Muslims may well be closely related to Egyptian Copts, but they have tended to deny it. Islam conquered those lands and colonised them thoroughly. You may as well claim modern Californians are descendents of the original Native Americans.

    saudi dude Says:”And who did Muhammed kidnap or chop body parts off?”

    You really want to waste time going through the aHadith? Fine. Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:

    Narrated Ibn Aun:

    I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.

    Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:

    Narrated Abu Qilaba:

    Anas said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle .”

    saudi dude Says:”It’s true there was slavery, but that was back in 600s AD, not the second millennium. If by chopping body parts off you mean beheadings, that was the method of execution employed back then with their equipments, and it certainly is isn’t as bad as “Hanging, drawing and quartering”, which was the punishment carried out in England for treason until the 1800s.”

    Although chopping off someone’s hands and feet and gouging out their eyes and leaving them to die slowly in the sun is at least as bad if not worse. However it does not change the fact that he did it either way.

    Reply

1Pingbacks & Trackbacks on Moments in Egyptian History #1

  1. [...] Moments in Egyptian history, courtesy of Sandmonkey: one and two. [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>