Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Ayatollah ElBaradei

Although some are still fooled by the talk of “freedom” around Cairo, the onset of an Islamic dictator in 2011 is looking all but inevitable in Egypt, with consequences as profound for the Middle East (and the world) as when an Islamic dictator first took over Iran in 1979—the most important turning point in Middle Eastern geo-politics since Napoleon took the pyramids.

(Check out yesterday’s post for some background on today’s fire in Cairo, and this video below for a short summation of the views of the folk in and around “Liberation” Square, Cairo, who want nothing more than to be free to destroy, and have nothing to offer the world but blood, tears and genocidal hatred .)

It will only have added irony if the vehicle by which that dictatorship comes is the man whom the UN had inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities—”nothing to see here” was his message when he came back from Tehran—the same man who now says of the Muslim Brotherhood, the progenitors of Al Qaeda and Hamas, that “We should stop demonizing them.”

The heroic Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave her take on Egypt this morning, one to which most of us would like to give a resounding “Yeah!”:

"We should help the secular democrats with a campaign of 'Yes to freedom. No to shariah.'

Well, yes we should. But the fact has to be faced that hoisting that sentiment in the face of the Islamist whirlwind is little more than wishful thinking. In the battle of Mid-Eastern ideas, freedom lost out to shariah centuries ago, and everything since has been the consequence of that.

I suggested yesterday what’s been obvious for some time, Egypt is going Islamist, as has Lebanon last month, as did Iran in 1979, and there’s very little you or I or Ayaan can do about it.

The mystic blood-letters are taking over from their secular cousins.

To commiserate with those few folk of reason in Egypt, who will soon be shot by both sides, here’s a sing-along from 1979 that is almost as topical today: Ayatollah, by Phil Judd and the Swingers.

Labels: , , , ,

15 Comments:

Blogger Dave Mann said...

I'm not sure that the outcome will necessarily be as bad as you fear, Peter..... but hey, who knows?

BTW, I am finding the coverage from Al Jazeera (WTF????) to be very informative, seemingly unbiased and in-depth. Here is a link to one of their articles:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113177145613.html

Cheers

2/01/2011 06:21:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Peter, I fear on this occasion you are dead right.

This is the guy who ran front man for Iran in it's Saddam-like contempt of the UN.

All I can say is thank God for Stuxnet. However an Islamic gang of Nazis running Egypt is a fearful prospect.

2/01/2011 06:56:00 pm  
Blogger rivoniaboy said...

Hey Peter,

Remember The Daily Reckoning dictum:ignorance increases by the square of the distance.
You really have no idea how this is going to play out.
Let the Egyptians sort out their own affairs, my experience suggests that New Zealand opinions about the governance of foreign countries is about as good as their savings rate.

2/01/2011 07:29:00 pm  
Anonymous Pablo said...

Peter:

The situation, while precarious, may not be as dire as you think. Besides the strong secularist-nationalist elements in Egyptian society and the military, as well as the geostrategic considerations that induce foreign involvement in order to prevent a radicalisation of the transitional outcome, there are more generic conditions to consider: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2011/01/hard-liners-and-soft-liners-in-the-construction-of-post-authoritarian-regimes/

The situation may be complex and delicate, but all is not yet lost for those who are looking for a non-Islamicist outcome..

2/01/2011 09:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Luc Hansen said...

The people who should decide who runs Egypt are, in fact, Egyptians.

I'm not quite sure how Pablo defines "Islamicist" but I do note that the country is 90% Muslim. I presume that Pablo defines "Islamicist" as anti-Western, Jihadist, terrorist funding lunatics. I look forward to his correction.

In my opinion, it's precisely the thinking exhibited here that sews the seeds of extremism. We have supported Mubarak, a ruthless, repressive, murdering dictator for 30 odd years.

Yet, in fact, if you listen to the people on the streets of Egypt, they just want to be like us. Very few people want to condemn their children to perpetual war.

But, I suppose, soon Egypt will be the next existential threat, after Iran is bombed back to the stone age.

If it all wasn't so tragic, it would be boring.

2/01/2011 10:21:00 pm  
Anonymous ttv said...

That's a nice debate. I like the topic.

2/02/2011 02:15:00 am  
Blogger Jeff Perren said...

"with consequences as profound for the Middle East (and the world) as when an Islamic dictator first took over Iran in 1979"

I see you haven't read my latest blog post. Can you flesh this out? What is important about Egypt? So far as I know, not much.

Happy to be corrected/educated here but I can't see how one more jihad-supporting country in the Middle East makes much difference, since they have no oil or nuclear weapons.

After all, once the Nazis took Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France, did it matter much that they invaded Belgium (except to the Belgians, of course)?

2/02/2011 04:56:00 am  
Anonymous Simon said...

Yeah who cares? Helicopter Ben starts printing money in earnest and Egypt tips over 5 minutes later. Doesn’t sound like some sort of powerhouse more like a bunch of losers.

If Ben hadnt printed money then this wouldnt be happening.

2/02/2011 06:38:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with this analysis, I'm afraid you may be right. The whole world seems to have been immediately and automatically plunged into a blind and naive support for the protests. Iran is voicing support for the protests which should make anyone worried.


"I see you haven't read my latest blog post. Can you flesh this out? What is important about Egypt? So far as I know, not much. "

Way I see it, if Iran gains an ally in their worldview and approach, it could be the trigger that emboldens them to actually attack Israel, one of the last outposts of democracy and modernity in the Middle East. Is that a bad thing? Would trouble spread worldwide? Perhaps not. I suppose some might not have strong feelings about the eradication of Jews in Israel and many would even cheer it even amongst the West. But it's no way a good thing for the world, actually. As a Jew I would obviously be bothered by this as it means another major genocide of my people, yet again.

2/02/2011 06:45:00 am  
Blogger Dave Mann said...

Jeff Perren thinks that there is 'nothing much' of importance about Egypt...!

Egypt has numerically the largest army in the region and has fought four wars against Israel, the only country so far to show any ability or motivation to stop Iran from developing a nuclear capability. Israel is also the only western-style democracy in the Middle East, but of course thats not really important.

Egypt has been bribed for thirty years now with billions of dollars of US money anually to pretend to be at 'peace' with Israel, despite the fact that the two have been historical enemies since biblical times.

Egypt was the birthplace of anti-western activism and islamofascism and has bred and nurtured almost every important terrorist movement for the past fifty years.

Egypt holds huge amounts of cultural significance in the Muslim world as a result of its history and as a focal point for panArab renaissance aspirations. Literally, for better or worse, the country is seen as a 'leader' in the Arab world (well, by the Arabs themselves anyway).

Nothing important so far.

Oh hang on.... what about that waterway thingy...? There's an important canal there I think. Nope, I might be wrong on that one, but I'm pretty sure of the other points. We'll leave the canal out of the argument because I can't be sure that it really exists and even if it did exist the ships would only go back and forth from Europe so its not really anything of any real importance.

2/02/2011 08:48:00 am  
Anonymous Simon said...

Israel is a democracy so what Uganda is a democracy. Israel is just another country. Nothing special.

“Egypt was the birthplace of anti-western activism and islamofascism”

That has more to do with Western support of Mubarak than anything else.

“Egypt holds huge amounts of cultural significance in the Muslim world”

Even if this is true so what. Really who gives a monkeys about Muslims and their mickey mouse beliefs. Muslim culture hell yeah I mean halal yeah!!

“what about that waterway thingy...? “

Why would the new Islamic nut job govt close the Suez?

Worse case the new Egyptian govt cuts their own noses off and closes the Suez canal to everyone except halal cargo vessels or sumfink. Perhaps you think Egypt will stop importing & exporting. Self enclosed exile from Europe or sumfink. Bizarre.

“ if Iran gains an ally”

Egypt is sunni Iran Shia. They anit mates when it comes down to it.

Egypt utter backwater.

2/02/2011 09:23:00 am  
Blogger Dave Mann said...

So, Simon, you think that the Suez canal is some sort of port for Egypt's imports do you? Christ...

2/02/2011 09:39:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Simon, your official response to the idea of Israel getting nuked is "so what" "Nothing special"? Don't expect much sympathy for your anti-semitic views mate - to some people that does matter. When Muslims overrun NZ or Aus or whatever, I'll be sure to shout "so what, nothing special" in return.

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFHAF13756420110201

"TEHRAN, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Iran said on Monday it hopes mass anti-government protests in Egypt will lead to the emergence of a more Islamic Middle East that will stand up to its enemies, Israel and the United States.

The Islamic Republic, locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear programme, sees gains for its own geopolitical influence in the region if Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a key U.S. and Israeli ally, is swept aside."

If you think this is irrelevant you are enormously over-arrogant and over-naive.

2/02/2011 11:13:00 am  
Anonymous Simon said...

“When Muslims overrun NZ or Aus or whatever”

Tra la la la la.

“So, Simon, you think that the Suez canal is some sort of port for Egypt's imports do you? Christ...”

No you are confused.

2/02/2011 01:46:00 pm  
Blogger Jeff Perren said...

Dave,

It doesn't look like you read my blog post, either. Fair enough, I'm not soliciting business. But, if you're interested, I did cover all your points.

As concisely as possible, though:

1. Yes, the Canal is hugely important. No matter who takes over Egypt, it wouldn't be closed for more than a day. By international treaty it is open to all in peace or war. If the new government closed it, someone (the Russians, probably) would overthrow the Egyptians in two hours and open it up again. Absolutely no one with any power gains if it stays closed.

2. There are already so many jihad-exporting countries in the Middle East I can't see that one more makes a difference. After all, once the Nazis took Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France, did it really matter that they also took Belgium? (Admittedly, it mattered to the Belgians, of course.)

3. Bag the sarcasm. I'm perfectly willing to be educated on why Egypt's fate is important, but surely it is not self-evident.

2/03/2011 06:08:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home