The Arab spring was a Western plot, to emasculate the moslems of the M.E.!
- Egypt's leading Sunni Muslim scholar


[whenever we see - EXPOSED - merit-less behaviour or consequences, impacting directly upon a moslem majority society -
- "This catastrophe is the result of an infidel conspiracy against we innocent moslems."]



IMAGE....
http://english.ahram.org.eg/Media/News/2014/5/12/2014-635354905020580598-58.jpg

Quote:

Arab spring a plot to divide countries: Egypt's Grand Imam Monday 12 May 2014 [Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, Egypt's leading Sunni Muslim scholar, at the historic al-Azhar mosque and university, in Cairo, October 2, 2013] Some Arab spring revolutions were launched to divide the countries of the region, Al-Azhar Grand Imam Ahmed El-Tayib has asserted. "Some Arab spring revolutions brought benefits but others were planned to destroy and divide countries," he said in an interview on Al-Hayat TV channel on Sunday. The West invented "corrupted" theories in order to steal the wealth of the East, El-Tayib added. "The East has not met the level of West, the gap is widening between them," he said, adding that there was a conspiracy to keep the East weak. "The West presented the clash of civilizations theory in order to provoke a clash with Islamic civilization." "There are non-Western nations with old civilizations that are capable of leading the world in a more reasonable way than the West," El-Tayib said. Western civilization is in a state of extreme moral, spiritual and religious poverty, he asserted. However, he noted that Islamic civilization was capable of coexisting with Western civilization. "The history of Islamic civilization is full of examples of respect for and recognition of the other."

i

The fact that the 'Arab spring' in the middle east has broadly failed to bring any significant benefits to moslem societies in the region, 'proves' [to many moslems   ;D   ] that the failed 'Arab spring' uprisings were all a Western plot to emasculate the moslems of the M.E.!

The Arab spring was certainly a Western plot Zionist plot, designed to cause the moslems of the M.E. to fight among themselves!

Honest!        :P




Once again we see exposed the hoary old excuse from moslems,
.....that whenever we see shameful and undesirable consequences [in a moslem majority society, from the behaviour and choices of moslems], consequences that moslems do not desire to see [and cannot praise Allah for],
.....then those undesirable consequences are portrayed as a result of the 'intrigues' of infidels [against moslems].
[p.s. Local Israelis too, incessantly face this very same type of slander.]

I suppose it is also our fault that all the blokes wear dresses.

Interesting idea though, isn’t it? The cable TV talking heads put the Arab Spring down to people-power. Radical imams like this one are putting it down to the meddlesome West.

Now, we know this isn’t possible based on the anxiety of Western leaders at the time. There’s no way the US State Department would support a popular uprising unless they had their hand in the pocket of those who come to power. They actively supressed an uprising in Iraq in 1991. The US Army even handed troublemakers over to Saddam’s Republican Guard. When the Saudis helped countries like Oman fight off the Arab Spring, they did so with US tanks and guns.

But it is curious that imams would blame Western influence, and it says a lot about the competing forces of power in the Middle East.

The Iranian Revolution saw a demokratic popular revolt in 1979 before the mullahs came to power. In many cases, the West and the Islamicists seem to be on the same page. If the US is happy to support Saudi Wahabists, Kuwaiti and Jordanian Royals, and various military regimes throughout the Arab peninsular, Northern Africa and Central Asia - with real guns and bullets - the imams can be forgiven for getting a little paranoid.

Why not see what a bloke who gets paid by a military dictator to be a military dictator's mouthpiece has to say?

Dictator: What caused the uprising? Was it a Western plot?

Sheikh: I believe it was a popular uprising sir.

Dictator: Are you aware that thousands of people have just been sentenced to death by my government for supporting the uprising? You wouldn't want to be mixed up with them would you?

Sheikh: I believe it was a Western plot.

Dictator: Exactly.




Just a tad ironic considering that the US was bankrolling anti-democracy activists:


US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html

The good scholar's musings are as simplistic and naive as those in the west who peddle the 'freedom vs autocrats' slogans.

The truth, as always, is far more complex.

Tunisia flared up quite literally when a hapless street vendor was ordered to close up shop and set himself alight. From there the revolution there maintained a distinctly economic emphasis. The overthrow of a corrupt dictator and the creation of a nascent democracy was really just by the way.

Egypt was somewhat similar, but had the additional injection of a renowned labor movement (the protests actually started in commemoration of a famous labor strike that was brutally suppressed by Mubarak), plus those facebook university youth instilled with all that western democracy. In fact, it was not too different to Tianamen Square, where the original peasant/laborer economic protestors were joined by uni student democrats. The key difference with Egypt was the existence of a sleeping giant - the muslim brotherhood, who sat out the revolution, only to seize power (democratically) in the aftermath. Realising what democracy actually meant, the facebook kids came back to the streets begging the generals to remove this abomination - which they gladly obliged.

Libya was the first case of the protestors resorting to violence from the start - and was really just a resumption of the old tribal split between Bengazi and Tripoli. This is the one place where the west did get involved - Libya was flat, sparse, with the opposing sides situated along nice easily defined lines. It was the perfect venue for US airpower to have maximum effect, for very little risk. Even so, the might of US air power was only just sufficient to compensate for breathtaking rebel incompetence and unexpected tenacity of the Gadaffi loyalists.

Bahrain was a sectarian protest - a long oppressed shiite majority rising up against the sunni monarchy. The royals were saved by Saudi tanks, and the shiite oppression continues to this day. The west was guilty only of being deafeningly silent over the Saudi and Bahraini atrocities, while screaming blue murder at the autocrats in Libya and Syria.

Yemen succeeded in forcing the removal of their dictator, but only after he caused a bloodbath. No serious democratic reforms have ensued, and the deomcratic protest movement was skillfully coopted by the Saudis and basically moulded into an islamist movement.

And of course we have Syria - perhaps started with genuine democracy protests, but quickly coopted by the islamists  -pumped in from outside by the Saudis, keen to start a proxy war with Iran (Assad's regime is closely linked to Tehran). The US and the west have expressed and given at least in-principle support to the rebels (including the setting up by CIA of an arms-smuggling racket in Bengazi - which just demonstrates how closely entwined the Libyan rebels were/are with the US), but in reality that support has been lukewarm. The real foreign agitators - Saudi Arabia and Turkey have pretty much been left high and dry, no doubt expecting significant US intervention, but not getting it. Still, the west is culpable for not pushing as hard as they could have for a ceasefire and settlement along the lines Russia has been pushing for.

gandalf,

Post #4, well stated, except the last sentence.

The West is not culpable in Syria, imo.

The conflict in Syria is totally a moslem affair [even if Syria is viewed as a proxy war, for Iran and Saudi interests].

Quote:

.........Tunisia flared up quite literally when a hapless street vendor was ordered to close up shop and set himself alight. From there the revolution there maintained a distinctly economic emphasis. The overthrow of a corrupt dictator and the creation of a nascent democracy was really just by the way. Egypt was somewhat similar, but had the additional injection of a renowned labor movement (the protests actually started in commemoration of a famous labor strike that was brutally suppressed by Mubarak), plus those facebook university youth instilled with all that western democracy. In fact, it was not too different to Tianamen Square, where the original peasant/laborer economic protestors were joined by uni student democrats. The key difference with Egypt was the existence of a sleeping giant - the muslim brotherhood, who sat out the revolution, only to seize power (democratically) in the aftermath. Realising what democracy actually meant, the facebook kids came back to the streets begging the generals to remove this abomination - which they gladly obliged. Libya was the first case of the protestors resorting to violence from the start - and was really just a resumption of the old tribal split between Bengazi and Tripoli. This is the one place where the west did get involved - Libya was flat, sparse, with the opposing sides situated along nice easily defined lines. It was the perfect venue for US airpower to have maximum effect, for very little risk. Even so, the might of US air power was only just sufficient to compensate for breathtaking rebel incompetence and unexpected tenacity of the Gadaffi loyalists. Bahrain was a sectarian protest - a long oppressed shiite majority rising up against the sunni monarchy. The royals were saved by Saudi tanks, and the shiite oppression continues to this day. The west was guilty only of being deafeningly silent over the Saudi and Bahraini atrocities, while screaming blue murder at the autocrats in Libya and Syria. Yemen succeeded in forcing the removal of their dictator, but only after he caused a bloodbath. No serious democratic reforms have ensued, and the deomcratic protest movement was skillfully coopted by the Saudis and basically moulded into an islamist movement. And of course we have Syria - perhaps started with genuine democracy protests, but quickly coopted by the islamists  ......

seems like a LOT of problems there .......
seems islam is the commonality.


'............Bahrain was a sectarian protest - a long oppressed shiite majority rising up against the sunni monarchy. The royals were saved by Saudi tanks, and the shiite oppression .........'

sectarian means nonreligious ?
Shiite and sunni  are muslims ? so, they are religious ?

Agreed, Y. G’s post 4 is an excellent summary. The Saudis, Persians, Turks, Uncle and the Russians. And all those internecine tibal rivalries. The shifting sands of Arab politics, eh?

Always, absolutely, never ever.

It is a jolly world, no?

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 15^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

sectarian means nonreligious ?

;D no sprint - you are probably thinking of secular

jesus christ

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 12:03am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 15th, 2014 at 9:38pm: sectarian means nonreligious ? ;D no sprint - you are probably thinking of secular

you are right, sorry.

so it was muslim vs muslim ?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

The good scholar's musings are as simplistic and naive as those in the west who peddle the 'freedom vs autocrats' slogans. The truth, as always, is far more complex. Tunisia flared up quite literally when a hapless street vendor was ordered to close up shop and set himself alight. From there the revolution there maintained a distinctly economic emphasis. The overthrow of a corrupt dictator and the creation of a nascent democracy was really just by the way. Egypt was somewhat similar, but had the additional injection of a renowned labor movement (the protests actually started in commemoration of a famous labor strike that was brutally suppressed by Mubarak), plus those facebook university youth instilled with all that western democracy. In fact, it was not too different to Tianamen Square, where the original peasant/laborer economic protestors were joined by uni student democrats. The key difference with Egypt was the existence of a sleeping giant - the muslim brotherhood, who sat out the revolution, only to seize power (democratically) in the aftermath. Realising what democracy actually meant, the facebook kids came back to the streets begging the generals to remove this abomination - which they gladly obliged. Libya was the first case of the protestors resorting to violence from the start - and was really just a resumption of the old tribal split between Bengazi and Tripoli. This is the one place where the west did get involved - Libya was flat, sparse, with the opposing sides situated along nice easily defined lines. It was the perfect venue for US airpower to have maximum effect, for very little risk. Even so, the might of US air power was only just sufficient to compensate for breathtaking rebel incompetence and unexpected tenacity of the Gadaffi loyalists. Bahrain was a sectarian protest - a long oppressed shiite majority rising up against the sunni monarchy. The royals were saved by Saudi tanks, and the shiite oppression continues to this day. The west was guilty only of being deafeningly silent over the Saudi and Bahraini atrocities, while screaming blue murder at the autocrats in Libya and Syria. Yemen succeeded in forcing the removal of their dictator, but only after he caused a bloodbath. No serious democratic reforms have ensued, and the deomcratic protest movement was skillfully coopted by the Saudis and basically moulded into an islamist movement. And of course we have Syria - perhaps started with genuine democracy protests, but quickly coopted by the islamists  -pumped in from outside by the Saudis, keen to start a proxy war with Iran (Assad's regime is closely linked to Tehran). The US and the west have expressed and given at least in-principle support to the rebels (including the setting up by CIA of an arms-smuggling racket in Bengazi - which just demonstrates how closely entwined the Libyan rebels were/are with the US), but in reality that support has been lukewarm. The real foreign agitators - Saudi Arabia and Turkey have pretty much been left high and dry, no doubt expecting significant US intervention, but not getting it. Still, the west is culpable for not pushing as hard as they could have for a ceasefire and settlement along the lines Russia has been pushing for.

       Given all you so eloquently relate I cannot help but feel that all that is merely the opening bars of a full symphony of disaster, a practice run for the mayhem ahead.
        Nothing has really been settled, has it, turmoil still reigns all through the area, and the religion?
        Sectarian anger is still extant, revenge and territorial attacks continue, and Egypt especially seems a ticking bomb.
      Can there be peace between the Shiítes and the Sunni's, anywhere?
      The Wahhabi's seem intent on provoking dissent in every nation on the planet, and they control the religious heart of Islam, with an iron hand too.
        I'm reminded of that old song.."You ain't seen nothing yet" :'(
   
         Is there anywhere a moderating force, an Islamic "peace movement" trying to calm things?
    
          I trust you realise by now I'm no bigot, I ask those questions with serious and open intent, I want to know because I simply do not.
      

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 12:03am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 15th, 2014 at 9:38pm: sectarian means nonreligious ? ;D no sprint - you are probably thinking of secular

This explains a lot about Sprintcyclists attitudes I reckon...in an indirect way.

Quote:

Is there anywhere a moderating force, an Islamic "peace movement" trying to calm things?

That's Gandalf apparently. He is fighting the forces of Islamic conservatism. He just can't say where.

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 8:55am:

Quote: Is there anywhere a moderating force, an Islamic "peace movement" trying to calm things? That's Gandalf apparently.

;D

Yup.

1/ ISLAM is peace loving philosophy.

2/ gandalf is a moslem,  ......therefore 3/ gandalf is an innate peacemaker/advocate for peace.          :P



Its the being a moslem, that does it.

Moslem = = a virtuous person.      100% of the time.








"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

Wow!!!!! .....i'm glad i'm a moslem, and not one of those 'People of the Book'!!!!

Nasty scumbags, vile people!

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 12:03am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 15th, 2014 at 9:38pm: sectarian means nonreligious ? ;D no sprint - you are probably thinking of secular

I must confess gandalf, it is unusual to hear a moslem referring to Sunnis and Shiites as secular groups.



gandalf,

Would you like to revise your description of Sunnis and Shiites as NOT being 'religious' people/groups ?



polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

Bahrain was a sectarian protest - a long oppressed shiite majority rising up against the sunni monarchy. The royals were saved by Saudi tanks, and the shiite oppression continues to this day. The west was guilty only of being deafeningly silent over the Saudi and Bahraini atrocities, while screaming blue murder at the autocrats in Libya and Syria.

Ah!!!!!        .....i see my error!!!

Sunnis and Shiites are moslem, after all!!!         :P

So it is a 'sectarian' conflict.




Peace, bros!!!!!

The peace of ISLAM', that is!

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

....Bahrain was a sectarian protest - a long oppressed shiite majority rising up against the sunni monarchy. The royals were saved by Saudi tanks, and the shiite oppression continues to this day. The west was guilty only of being deafeningly silent over the Saudi and Bahraini atrocities, while screaming blue murder at the autocrats in Libya and Syria.

An open, public conflict between of Sunni and Shiite people/groups ?

Conflict, between moslems ?

How can this be??????

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110




Surely the infidels must be behind such conflicts [among moslem]!!!!   ?           :P

Yup!

Yadda wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 10:34am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 12:03am: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 15th, 2014 at 9:38pm: sectarian means nonreligious ? ;D no sprint - you are probably thinking of secular I must confess gandalf, it is unusual to hear a moslem referring to Sunnis and Shiites as secular groups.

True, Y. G is quite different to all the other Muslims you speak to, no?

gandalf, is a different moslem?

Not at all K.



In what way ?

shiites and sunnis are two different sects within the muslim population.

I fail to see whats so difficult with this.

Sunnis are the Muslim sect. Shites are the apostate sect. That's why they kill them.

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

Sunnis are the   Muslim   sect. Shites are the apostate sect. That's why they kill them.

Yup.

That is the view, from a Sunni perspective.




But if you ask a Shiite who the real moslems are, the Shiite will claim that he has that honour.

Isn't that right, gandalf!     :)

True, but if you ask a Sunni, he will point out that the Shites (and only the shites) practice Taqiyya.

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

Sunnis are the Muslim sect. Shites are the apostate sect. That's why they kill them.

your words not mine.

freediver

Quote:

Sunnis are the Muslim sect. Shites are the apostate sect. That's why they kill them.

That's the accepted muslim way to get all the shite out of them.

It's all muslim against muslim ad infinitum and ad nauseam. All muslim countries suffer appalling human rights outrages, all suffer from endemic corruption the sanctity of life has little or no meaning to them. They then wish to pollute the rest of the planet with there obnoxious murderous belief system that is so sick it has polluted 1.5 billion people with it's disease. Our politicians should realise this before we suffer the same problems as Europe.

And this time it is ALL the followers of Islam's fault.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

freediver wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 1:20pm: Sunnis are the Muslim sect. Shites are the apostate sect. That's why they kill them. your words not mine.

Actually it is from Abu.

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 5:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 3:47pm: freediver wrote on May 16th, 2014 at 1:20pm: Sunnis are the Muslim sect. Shites are the apostate sect. That's why they kill them. your words not mine. Actually it is from Abu.

You miss Abu don't you?

FD will never get Abu back. Never. G can only hold a candle to the place in his heart FD still pines for Abu.

Ah.

I like to think that Abu is still with us.

Either that, or in Syria.

Abu will always be with you, FD. Please remember that.

Karnal wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:

Abu will always be with you, FD. Please remember that.

Creepy!




FD,

Ask God to surround you with his light.

;)

Adamant wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 4:10pm:

It's all muslim against muslim ad infinitum and ad nauseam. All muslim countries suffer appalling human rights outrages, all suffer from endemic corruption the sanctity of life has little or no meaning to them. They then wish to pollute the rest of the planet with there obnoxious murderous belief system that is so sick it has polluted 1.5 billion people with it's disease. Our politicians should realise this before we suffer the same problems as Europe.

adamant,

Correct, imo.

ISLAM is a disease a pathology of the human psyche, imo.








Quote:

And this time it is ALL the followers of Islam's fault.

What, allowing moslems to 'pollute' Europe - with ISLAM ?



This is not entirely the fault of moslems, imo.

Because by our toleration of a philosophy like ISLAM - we are choosing to actively allowing ISLAM to pollute our own society with its 'cultural' 'poison', imo.



Quote:

.....if we join what is precious with what is vile, we do not in that act, 'improve' that which is vile. We merely corrupt that which is precious. e.g. I have two buckets. The first bucket is full of clean, fresh water. The second bucket is full of sewage. Q. If i pour both buckets into a third container, what do i get? A. A third container, full of diluted sewage. Conclusion? While i could safely drink from the 1st bucket, i could >> not << safely drink from the 2nd bucket, or the 3rd container. So it is with evil, that is 'tolerated' by good people. No matter how many times we repeat the phrase, "Tolerance is good.", ...our tolerance of what is clearly evil, is not a virtue. It is a process, a progression. Whenever we choose to become tolerant of evil [in our midst], it is certain, as night follows day, that we ourselves, will become evil. i.e. If we are tolerant of what is clearly evil, it is because we now ARE evil. When we embrace the concept of 'tolerance', but what we are prepared to tolerate is clearly evil, ...we become those, who are evil, OURSELVES. Our 'tolerance' of evil, is not tolerance. It is wickedness!

i

Quote:

Think about this, If we tolerate evil, and wickedness, in our midst, ...we, ourselves, will become those, who are evil. And tolerance of evil, is not 'tolerance'. It is wickedness! And today people just don't get that truth. In fact most people will strenuously deny that logic. No matter how many times we repeat the phrase, "Tolerance is desirable, and good, and peaceable.", ...our tolerance of what is clearly evil, is not a virtue. Whenever we choose to be tolerant of evil [in our midst], it is certain, as night follows day, that we ourselves, will become evil. Our 'tolerance' of evil, merely reveals the wickedness which is ALREADY within us! And if you are a person who is "tolerant" of evil behaviour, DON'T KID YOURSELF, ...God hates you. "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." Karl Popper "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." Thomas Mann

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 8:00am:

I like to think that Abu is still with us. Either that, or in Syria.

Yup.

Abu's prolly gone over there as many moslems do,     ....to be an 'aid worker', so as to make himself a better man moslem.

:)

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 8:00am:

I like to think that Abu is still with us.

I'll put forward two possible scenarios.

1 We turned him to the bright side and goes to church on Sundays whilst keeping his head down, as he does not want to loose it. ;D

2 He shuffled off his mortal coil went to Allah's pad grew a new foreskin currently engaged in extra curricula activity with those 700 black eyed virgins. ::)