Regime change, al-Qaeda style

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

no it was on a rebound from one bad thing to another. it was an approach of "anythign but what we currently have" and then realize you were out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[/QUOTE]

See, this not how the algerians (right or left) looked at it, the army backed by the EU and US thought they will go from frying pan and into the fire, thats why they resisted change. FIS in 1992 was lead by EU educated people who knew how to govern and lead, but the problem was they used the word Islam and its values that hurt the ruling elite and its supportrs.

There are almost 20 million people living in Arabia, if some one who is Wahabi leads the country, I it would be better than the Saudis. At least the wealth of the country will not be shared by just clan of 20,000. Its just like the Baathist. Before 1932, the Saudis after assuming the role of leadership, and before the oil, had a Shura of 14 different clans from all over the Arabia. But as soon as Oil was discovered, the rest of the clans became history. So there are other forces behind the change as well.

Al-hudairy clan is an example set by the current regeime, after they ploted a coup in 1980 in Haram.

In case of an local change the the stauts of the believers and non-believers would remain the same.

22

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
Are we on a different wave length, I don't care if its whabbis or al-qaeda running the show BUT the fact that majority rules. If majority wants Wahibis then I have no problem with that.

Once they are in power democracy no longer exist, yeah sure!!! democracy no longer exist if they are anti-west. As a matter fact in that case even a dictator is acceptable. Don't try to tell me that US gives two hoots about some camel jokey from a minorty sect.
[/QUOTE]
Then don't try to tell me you give two hoots about the people of SA or the ummah at large if you don't care if the wahabis or al Qaeda rule the sacred lands of Islam.

It shows your ignorance as to what a democratic and free country is if you think a majority, whether it's 51% or 90%, elects to impose their religous codes and laws upon the remaining people. I'm not advocating democracy or anything else for SA, mainly because I don't think it is possible because of their outdated, myopic and fundamentalist beliefs. Just that if someone like al-Qaeda is 'elected' in SA, what they will have will not a democracy.

23

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Then don't try to tell me you give two hoots about the people of SA or the ummah at large if you don't care if the wahabis or al Qaeda rule the sacred lands of Islam.

It shows your ignorance as to what a democratic and free country is if you think a majority, whether it's 51% or 90%, elects to impose their religous codes and laws upon the remaining people. I'm not advocating democracy or anything else for SA, mainly because I don't think it is possible because of their outdated, myopic and fundamentalist beliefs. Just that if someone like al-Qaeda is 'elected' in SA, what they will have will not a democracy.
[/QUOTE]

I know exactly what a democracy is especially looking through US lense. The one who toes US line even if its a dictatorship is a democracy An example would be what you call India the biggest democracy and look what they did to their minorities in Gujarat. Would you like to read the HR report on how Indian govt was involved and planned the killings. Oh well the same are in power again elected by the majority. Perhaps you can come with a spin or a different difination of democracy to justify that.

24

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
Are we questioning the will of majority here?

[/QUOTE]

No, go back and read what I wrote. people who may elect or let mullah types takle over as a replacement for some other broken political system will realize sooner or later that being ruled by these clowns is not a picnic either.

whether they were allowed to rule or not is not my argument and is a tangent.

My point is that even by some chance if extremists get into power, the population will reject them sooner or later.

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

No, go back and read what I wrote. people who may elect or let mullah types takle over as a replacement for some other broken political system will realize sooner or later that being ruled by these clowns is not a picnic either.

whether they were allowed to rule or not is not my argument and is a tangent.

My point is that even by some chance if extremists get into power, the population will reject them sooner or later.
[/QUOTE]

Jumping the gun, We must let them decide if they are happy with the regime and the way it counduct state affairs. One cannot say unless there is one in place. After all the yanks claim Reza Shah Pahlavi was much better then mullahs but Iranians had different feelings.

26

It all depends how do you define extremists, the Saudis are extremists in their rule. So are several democracies when they shove their rules to the masses through legislation, in which masses have no say. Isn’t any dictator or a general an extremist?

But we always cry if some one from the clergy comes and wants to play the same game.

27

You know guys you are harvesting tomatoes before even a seed is planted. First they need to let their women drive cars, come out of that black bathrobe, get equality in the society, and then there should be a talk of free elections and representation. Currently half of the Saudi population lives in virtual slavery and detainment. Their only hope is to implement a system comparable to Turkey (a secular and non-religious form of governance). At a later point, they can have some version of democracy.

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *

Jumping the gun, We must let them decide if they are happy with the regime and the way it counduct state affairs. One cannot say unless there is one in place. After all the yanks claim Reza Shah Pahlavi was much better then mullahs but Iranians had different feelings.
[/QUOTE]

You jumped the gun by posing extremists as a viable alternative, i took it one step further and told you what the next step will be.

even in Iran's case, so people revolted against a monarch and replaced him with khomeini, talk to an average Irani now and see how they are itching to get some real representative government. But as I already said, once these guys come in power they stick around just like the royal types..

29

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MiniMe: *
It all depends how do you define extremists, the Saudis are extremists in their rule. So are several democracies when they shove their rules to the masses through legislation, in which masses have no say. Isn’t any dictator or a general an extremist?

But we always cry if some one from the clergy comes and wants to play the same game.
[/QUOTE]

why support anyone playing that game? as far as democracies shoving rules via legislation, its by elected representatives who can be unseated by the people in next elections.

clergy are the only one who play teh same game at a an entirely different level and use some sort of divine imparted right to do so. clergy has also shown that they are unprepared to face the challenges and opportunities of the current time, and are focused on a puritanical mission of closing cinemas rather than thinkign about tax breaks to compoanies setting up service centers to do offshore development work for major clients.

30

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

You jumped the gun by posing extremists as a viable alternative, i took it one step further and told you what the next step will be.

even in Iran's case, so people revolted against a monarch and replaced him with khomeini, talk to an average Irani now and see how they are itching to get some real representative government. But as I already said, once these guys come in power they stick around just like the royal types..
[/QUOTE]

No I am not sideing with extremist or pro western thugs but the will of the masses which you don't seem to comprehend. If majority want extremist then its their business and further if they are not satisfied with the performance they have the right to remove it as they deem fit. Just like BJP/Modi is back in business after slaughtering 1000s but India is still considered the biggest democracy.

31

No body is supporting them to play this game, my question is why cry only when some one uses the name Islam, in their party? Why this assumption that they will fail or they will be bad.

My point is that the rule should be the same for every one, a dictator creating an elected assembly to support his own rule, is as equal to extremism or monarchy. The beauty of Islam is that it puts the responsibility of '"Amer bil Maarof and Nahi an al Munker" on every one not just people from the right or left of the political spectrum.

32

Nothings gonna change in Saudi... This is all good fiction.

33

my question is why cry only when some one uses the name Islam, in their party? Why this assumption that they will fail or they will be bad. <<<

Minime Bhaijan, may be I should start an Ahmadiya Party of Islamic Unity and Prophethood in Pakistan. I promise I wont be bad.

34

Sir ji, I hope all the Ahmdis would vote for this party, the rest will vote for their Unity and Brotherhood party, and eventually we will end up with 20 unity and brotherhood parties, sounds like today’s Pakistan :)

35

Minime Bhaijan,,,there's Unity in Diversity. I see your point, and totally agree with you. It is not what one calls itself, it is the deeds that we should scrutinize. As you said, if PPP does something stupid they will get away with it, but if JI does it, they will be taunted for a long time.

I personally like multiparty system, it gives Pakistanis a much bigger poll to pick from. I know things don’t work out, but that will take time, until the people are given a chance to figure it out. What happens every few years is that the process of learning is stopped by someone in Wardi.

36

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *

No I am not sideing with extremist or pro western thugs but the will of the masses which you don't seem to comprehend. If majority want extremist then its their business and further if they are not satisfied with the performance they have the right to remove it as they deem fit. .
[/QUOTE]

so how is it different from what I am saying that #1 people have seen enough examples that they will probably not elect hardliners #2 if they do elect hardliners, the hardliners will nto win a follow up election #3 hardliners when in power create a mess and take people's right to elect their representatives away :)

I think ur statement of #1 and #2 shows that u agree with what I am saying, and #3 is evident from their track record.

37

Originally posted by MiniMe: *
**No body is supporting them to play this game, my question is why cry only when some one uses the name Islam, in their party? Why this assumption that they will fail or they **will* be bad. **

Becuase they are using the term islam only as a banner to get power. if someone was using my race, my ethnicity as a basis for platform and not being true to it, I would have issues with that too.

** The beauty of Islam is that it puts the responsibility of '"Amer bil Maarof and Nahi an al Munker" on every one not just people from the right or left of the political spectrum. **

exactly, but the religious parties cant keep changing their tune, they demanded democracy back during zia's rule and when there were elections they said democracy was unislamic and they wanted sharia based govt system etc etc etc.

If mullahs stop whining, start doing some work and focus their attention from cultural norms and taboos and pay attention to education, health, economy etc, they will be going somewhere. As of right now none of the MMA parties in pakistan have a real plan beyond a 5th grade thinking level to address any of these issues.

and sure, a monrach is as bad as some self appointed mullah ruler or military dictator, and when they are all bad, the better one of teh bad lot is the one who is accomplishing something for his people in all spheres of life and does not consider closing cinemas and banning music as some sort of revolutionary action which will propel teh country to excel in science, technology and business.

thats why mullahs are more bad..if they come in power not only will they be a theocratic dictatorship, but they wont do jack for people, their track record speaks for itself.

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

so how is it different from what I am saying that #1 people have seen enough examples that they will probably not elect hardliners #2 if they do elect hardliners, the hardliners will nto win a follow up election #3 hardliners when in power create a mess and take people's right to elect their representatives away :)

I think ur statement of #1 and #2 shows that u agree with what I am saying, and #3 is evident from their track record.
[/QUOTE]

Coz you are asuming, thats why I am citing the example of Algeria where an Islamic party won and was not even given the chance on the other hand we have hindu fundamentalist BJP with one hell of a track record with the blood of minorites on its hands and its running the show under the mask of democracy. Now how is BJP different and what version of democracy is India? If India is the biggest democracy then if its good for India its good for any islamic country.

So the bottom line its no ones business who runs the show a rag head or pro western theif as long as he has been elected by the majority.

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *

So the bottom line its no ones business who runs the show a rag head or pro western theif as long as he has been elected by the majority.
[/QUOTE]

since I am not talking about Algeria specifically I will focus again on what I said earlier, masses in general may elect mullah types on rebound but would realize that its an out of the fryign pan and into teh fire situation..e.g. Iran.

it is no body;s business to an extent, if an elected government strats breaking all sorts of human rights rules, intervention is not only warranted, its needed.

My point has nothing to do with all these tangents..

The point is very simple..

1) people have sen enough of the idiocy of these mullah types that they probably will not let them get in power..they may bring them in as a substitution but given more choices they will not

2) if such a group comes in power, you can rest assured that they will not stay in power due to people's own will..that is assuming that people are allowed free elections at the end of the term

These parties hilosophy can be written on a 2X4 note card.."sharia will solve all problems" ask them what their vision is, and how they plan to address employment, education, industry, health, economy and they have nothing. Sure they may come in power if they are the only option for some population which is fed up with self serving monarchs, but once the populaytion realizes that it has brought useless fanatics in place who have no plans they will regret it and go against them.

40

** since I am not talking about Algeria specifically I will focus again on what I said earlier, masses in general may elect mullah types on rebound but would realize that its an out of the fryign pan and into teh fire situation..e.g. Iran. **

How does Iran example fits the description? Ask any Iranian if they want Reza Shah back. Ask any Iranian if Shah was better then mullahs. Do you see mass demonstrations the size that eventually toppled the shah? so far I have seen none and yes I do work with Iranians and get first hand feedback.

** it is no body;s business to an extent, if an elected government strats breaking all sorts of human rights rules, intervention is not only warranted, its needed. **

So please explain then how is India labeled as the biggest democracy and is in the good books of US.

** My point has nothing to do with all these tangents.. **

These tangents are living examples of hypocrisy around you. Please refer to my above question.

** 1) people have sen enough of the idiocy of these mullah types that they probably will not let them get in power..they may bring them in as a substitution but given more choices they will not **

I am sure you are not implying that Pashtuns are idiots since they have elected mullahs by overwhelming majority. Don’t even try that there were no other choices. Have you seen any demonstrations against these what you call mullahs?

** 2) if such a group comes in power, you can rest assured that they will not stay in power due to people's own will..that is assuming that people are allowed free elections at the end of the term

These parties hilosophy can be written on a 2X4 note card.."sharia will solve all problems" ask them what their vision is, and how they plan to address employment, education, industry, health, economy and they have nothing. Sure they may come in power if they are the only option for some population which is fed up with self serving monarchs, but once the populaytion realizes that it has brought useless fanatics in place who have no plans they will regret it and go against them. **

How can you be so sure they will not be reelected? I refer you again to India/BJP a party with Nazi links with the history of violence against minorities. Unless you are of the opinion India is not a democracy? And what makes you think if a pro western thug a non mulla comes to power will provide roti kapra and makan? was it not Bhutto who won by land slide victory said that. Was it not Bhutto who declared Ahmedis kafirs…And I can go on and on with tons of examples from around the world with democratically elected “none mullahs” and their deeds. And for your info Bhutto was anything but mullah.

Lets not discuss hypothetical scenarios and stress on what we have seen so far, living examples of non mullahs and democratically elected regimes. Since India is in the good books of US and is also called the “biggest democracy” and is right next door to us. How do you explain the killing of minorities orchestrated by the govt. which was elected by the same people. How does that makes India the biggest democracy but if a mullah who was not even given the chance to form a govt was labbled a terrorist, mad man and rejected outright?