It is also definition 2. It is arbitrary and unreasonable to kill someone for leaving Islam.

The indigenous Egyptian Christians (the Copts) were already being persecuted by radical Muslims under Mubarak, how do you think the radical Muslims are going to treat them when they're running the show?

If genocide becomes an issue, I am always in favor of the UN supplying peace-keeping missions to protect the innocent long enough to relocate them or engage in negotiations. Until such a time, it is none of my business what another nation wants as their punishments for local laws, particularly in the vast majority. (On a sidenote, if being used as peacekeeping troops in cases of the slaughter of innocents were what the military were used for, I would sign up tomorrow morning and die for it tomorrow afternoon).

I am not in favor of taking sides in nations whose popularly-elected personal governments are none of our business. If the vast majority of a nation does not want a class of individual, we will take them here. That is supposed to be our (the US') motto. I am perfectly in favor of making immigration easier and allowing people dislocated by non-criminal persecution to move to the US.

The problem with using definition 2 is that it is not Despotic behaviour. Like Gorgon said, I'm not going to tell a popular government democratically elected how to run the show until true human rights violations such as genocide become an issue. And since I am a reserve soldier I would have the opportunity as well as the will to fight injustices that may be (but there is no evidence to suggest there will be) against the Copts in Egypt. However till such a time that they prove they intend on persecuting those people. It's not my place to tell a country how it should be run.

I do agree with you. I'm just saying, all these people who sit there applauding that the Egyptians are finally "getting what they want", like it's some wonderful display of liberal democracy . . . I don't think they've really looked into "what they want" too closely.

I also think it's outrageous the way the West is sticking its nose into Libya. It's the same situation. The rebels are being lauded by the West as "the good guys", and France is supplying them with weapons. But the rebels are radical Muslims, many of whom have been involved in al-Qaeda, Mujihadeen in the Balkans, et cetera. Why are Western governments helping them? Gadaffi used to be a Western ally before we suddenly decided he was enemy No.1.

I agree with the principle of self-determination for every ethnic group. I do not necessarily think "the West" should be running around getting involved in other people's business . . . however, there are a couple of issues:

1) Is it REALLY none of the West's business? WHY does the West feel the need to get involved? Because radical Muslim countries are a threat to them. If they were just quietly oppressing their own Christian/Baha'i/Zoroastrian/Buddhist/Hindu citizens, that would be one thing. But Radical Muslims hate the West and always have. Anti-Americanism has deep roots in Islam, for example. Deeper than the 20th century anyway.

When did Muslims first begin attacking the U.S.?
It wasn't the 2001 attacks in New York.
It wasn't the 2000 attacks in Los Angeles.
It wasn't the 1993 attacks in New York.
It wasn't the 1989 attacks in New York.
It wasn't the 1977 attacks in Washington.

Muslims attacked the U.S. in 1783, and justified it by saying it was a Jihad against infidels.

2) What are the consequences of this ideology running wild? Why should the indigenous Christians just roll over and accept it? The Copts have been there for . . . well, racially since pre-history, but religiously since the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Why shouldn't they arm up and defend themselves, provoking an ethnic civil war? Why shouldn't fellow Christians in other countries get involved, and smuggle arms and supplies to Coptic guerrilla fighters? After all, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Muslims from different countries stuck their nose in to help their fellow Muslims in the Mujihadeen.



Why should your country be the doormat for everyone else? Your country has just as much right to preserve its own identity as any other country.

We'll leave the "Muslims are a threat to the West" bit to the several other threads that it is currently active in. Once again, until an Egyptian government proves itself to be supplying and aiding terrorists, it is not my nation's responsibility to tell them how to run their government. The world is an unsafe place, and keeping people under our thumbs in an attempt to stop attacks does not make us safer. The #1 indicator of terror support is if a person believes the US has their self-determination in mind. Thus, taking away their self-determination is a good way to cause terrorism support. (See the Oslo thread where I first cited this statistic).

The Copts are not a majority there. If they are unwanted and a compromise cannot be peacefully reached, which we do not know will happen, then offering them a new home in my nation is what I can do. If they choose to stay and fight a war, then they are welcome to it. I won't be supporting helping a minority group attempt to gain control of a region by force. I don't care who did what or lived where historically. I will be happy that a nation has self-determination, and if that nation proves to be a hotbed of human-rights infringements I will support offering humanitarian aid, including relocation, to those who are being persecuted. I will not support unnecessary war over land. Particularly not on the side of a minority group.

I think that it is my nations job to "be a doormat" because it is something my nation has traditionally prided itself on. It is one of the truly American cultural traits which we have prided since our inception, although whether or not it has always been earned pride is up for debate. That is my culture. Inviting others to my nation won't stop me from being able to enjoy jazz or baseball, but not inviting them into my nature would have kept jazz or baseball from being what they are.

I also think that it is best for my nation to take in those who are unwanted in their nations. Studies show the longer a family has been in the United States, the worse their children do at school (on average) due to motivation*. Americans take being American for granted. Families from overseas bring a willingness to do low-wage jobs, ingenuity, hard-working attitudes, they open additional markets, they are more likely to vote, they have more reason to be patriotic, and they inspire those of us who have taken these traits for granted to be better. I don't see it as us doing them a service; I see it as a mutual gain.

But that is a point about immigration. We shouldn't tarry on this for too long, since this thread is about Egypt. I feel that is enough justification to at least provide a basis of understanding for my points about Egypt. I hope you feel this is fair. Feel free to pick this up in an immigration thread and PM me (or just PM me) if you want to continue in this direction.

_{*I wish I could cite this, but it is tucked away in notes and books. As I am currently without a home, all such notes and books are in storage. I will try to find a citation when such an option becomes more plausible for me.}

^ Hence I want to immigrate. However that is for another thread.

Quaddafi and the revolution going on over there is one that perhaps we are either too involved in or not enough. We should be one or the other. Also I don't know if the revolutionaries there are radical Muslims, they profiled a lot of what we'd call "officers" and they're all well educated well spoken men, doctors, men with degrees in business and commerce, then again they could end up like Algeria, going from a gem of a nation to a relatively despotic and rather extreme Muslim state. Perhaps it is a new bias but there have been no sources on any news channel I have seen confirming or denying the Libyan revolution's intent, or whether there is an organised party specifically looking to take over. Then again, maybe I just haven't educated myself enough on the matter.

The Egyptian revolution's religious nature had not escaped me. In fact that is one of my big criticisms of the revolution, but that's because I believe in separation of religious and state affairs. However I understand that In the middle east and north Africa, because of the cultural ties to Islam it is very hard to separate the two.

They already are.

2011.07.30 Egypt Al Arish 5 19 Children are among the casualties when fundamentalists on motorbikes go on a shooting spree while shouting Islamic slogans. 2011.07.25 Egypt Samalout 0 6 A pregnant woman is among six Christians brutally assaulted with iron rods by a Muslim mob angered over a church bell. 2011.06.26 Egypt Awlad Khalaf 0 3 Three Christians are injured when a Muslim mob torches eight homes on a rumor that one was to become a church. 2011.05.19 Egypt Cairo 0 3 Three Catholics are severely injured by a rock-throwing Muslim mob intent on preventing a church from opening. 2011.05.15 Egypt Cairo 2 0 Two Copts are gunned down in a Muslim drive-by attack. 2011.05.15 Egypt Cairo 0 50 About fifty Christians are injured when a Muslim mob hurls rocks and homemade bombs into a peaceful protest. 2011.05.09 Egypt Cairo 1 0 A 60-year-old Catholic grandfather is beaten to death by enraged Muslims. 2011.05.08 Egypt Imbada 1 0 Islamists break into a Catholic church and slit a member's throat . . . et cetera

I think you're either mixing leaders or mixing rebellions, Grey. Muammar Gaddafi if from the nearby Libya, which began rebelling shortly after Egypt. Their rebellion is receiving Western military support, so far as I know Egypt did not.

Edit (with response to the above): State-supported crimes and instances of hate-crime are different. What a nation does about its crime rate is up to that nation. If you can provide me with a primary source demonstrating that the Egyptian government officially condones terrorism or genocide, then I will give those facts due diligence. As of the lat count, the city I live in has a higher violent crime rate than Egypt on average. I remain unmotivated to stop self-determination to take sides in a conflict that is statistically meaningless amongst the nation's crime as a whole.

If you would like to change my mind, please provide some citations of the current total violent crime rate of the nation, including a subcategory for crimes with overt, undeniable anti-Christian motivations. Demonstrate that it is a serious problem with statistics, rather than specifically chosen, unorganized, and probably unrelated incidents all piled together.

With response to the "America was attacked in the 1700's" notion, you cannot blame a modern society for what a different society, and especially what the pirates of a different society did hundreds of years ago in isolated incidents. And you may recall that the Barbary, Ivory, and Gold coasts had a little bit of a history with white people by this time. It's not like aggression against European and similar powers is surprising given their histories up to that point. Those "attacks" cannot be attributed to the current Egyptian government by any stretch of the imagination.

I know that they are two separate rebellions, hence in the first paragraph I noted that we either need to aid the effort more or cut aid all together, I went on to say I don't know enough about the revolutionaries and their intent to comment as to whether I agree with their ideologies.

In the second paragraph I commented on the Egyptian revolutionaries and how I disagree with their aims, but don't disagree with the overthrowing of Mubarek. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. But I understand the difference.

Edit, there is NZ Army presence in Egypt, there has been since the troubles in Sinai some time ago, and the revolution was going on while I was on base, they mentioned it quite a lot. I do know the distinction, I thought that was clear, but I understand it may not have been.

Sorry Grey, I only got so far as the name and I moved to provide you with a friendly correction. I should have finished reading.

Not a problem. Occasionally I do the same. Very bad habit.

Alright, I'm not aware of any edict that explicitly sanctions killing Copts. However, there IS state-sanctioned persecution against them.

Building Churches in Egypt and the Ground Zero Mosque

"Unlike Muslim citizens, who only need a municipal license to build mosques, the Copts require presidential approval for a church, based on the 1856 Ottoman Hamayoni Decree, in addition to ten humiliating conditions laid down by the Ezaby Pasha Decree of 1934, before being considered for a presidential decree. These include the approval of the neighboring Muslim community.

"Muslim clerics and Islamists easily persuade Muslims that a church is equivalent to slandering Islam, so they take advantage of this "Muslim approval" condition," said Guindi.

Even after obtaining licenses for a church, Muslims still attack Christians and demolish or burn their churches (AINA 7-12-2009). A rumor that Christians are meeting to pray is enough reason for Muslim neighbors to carry out acts of violence against them (AINA 8-21-2009). On various occasions, it only takes Muslims to protest against the building of a church for State Security to stop the works, under the pretext that it is causing "sectarian strife.""

And what about Shariah law? Enacting the death penalty for "blasphemy" (against Islam) would conceivably amount to de facto persecution of Copts. Because a lot of these Muslims interpret being Coptic as blasphemy against Islam. It would amount to Copts not being allowed to exist as Copts.


Since you know it, what is the violent crime rate in Egypt?



What do you want? Statistics of what? Organised how? They're all related in that they are Muslim persecuting Copts. There are all demonstrably linked to anti-Christian motives. There's no reasonable doubt here, only unreasonable doubt.

List of Muslim Massacres of Copts since 1970



First of all, the Barbary "Pirates" were privateers. State-sanctioned pirates. And, if you watched the video, you'll know the Ambassador of Tripoli was well aware of their actions, and explained them in terms of Jihad and the Qu'ran.

Secondly, The Barbary Slave Trade wasn't an isolated incident, it took place over three hundred years.

Thirdly, what do you mean "a different society"? 18th century America and 20th century America is still America. Algiers or Algeria . . . the borders and government might have changed since then, but why do you say it's a different society? They're still Arabic-speaking Muslim Berbers in North Africa. I wasn't talking about a "modern society", I was talking about Anti-American Islam.



What do you mean here? Yes, the Muslim Barbary Pirates had a history of attacking Europe and slave-raiding up the coasts of Britain, Ireland, even as far as Iceland. About 1-2,000,000 white European Christians were enslaved by state-sanctioned Muslim Barbary pirates. Europe wasn't the aggressor, and neither was America.



I agree, they can't. Egypt wasn't a Barbary state.

Freedom always prevails in the very end!

Algeria. That is one example. It disproves you immediately.

I don't know the crime rate by number. I know that at last count it was considered low. This is why I am interested if you find some numbers to share. I already mentioned the church policies, but to reinforce my opinion: how a state handles their zoning laws is up to the state, so long as it doesn't lead to human-rights infringements against international laws. If that sort of favoritism were happening in the US, it would upset me. It is happening in Egypt, where their majority can choose how they want to handle a religion so long as the state isn't condoning violence/genocide. If they treat the coptics as second-class citizens, let the Coptics come here. I would love to invite them into my nation. Let the Coptics rebel for their rights, I would love to not interfere.

As I said before, piling a list of crimes without a baseline, something you seem fond of doing, doesn't actually tell us anything. It is a statistically meaningless statement. I explained exactly what I want. I want to know what percentage of violent crime in Egypt is religiously motivated hate-crime against a specific group by a specific group. Without that, the data is without applicable purpose. This will determine if I feel that there is an attempted genocide occurring, at which point I would favor the placement of US or UN peacekeeping troops until such a time where an agreement can be made or Coptics willing to relocate have been given haven.

Yes, Muslim nations had for a long time attacked Europe and Europeans, and enslaved them. Europeans had done the same to them. There is no innocent party here, and nobody is saying there is. And there are plenty of European pirates and companies who bribed their way into a profit by taking advantage of Christian, Muslim, and other peoples. Like I said, there is a history there. Regardless, those profiteering raids were no more related to modern terrorism than the burning of witches was related to the persecution of "commies." They were different issues with cosmetic similarities.

American slavery from generations ago should not be blamed on modern America unless modern American continues to support, in policy or in majority, slavery. What happened in the Barbary Coast hundreds of years ago should not be blamed on the modern Barbary Coast unless their government or majority continue to support the same policies. And, as we both agree, Egypt is not related to this distractive chain of thought, so it should be dropped regardless.

Who are you talking to, and what are you talking to them about?

I was disproving this with a rather glaring example of where the revolution ended with a despotic regime that crushed the freedoms France gladly gave to the native Algerians.

=) they might be next.

Not a chance. They've had one revolution, that government is quite sound where it is.

Also, please don't justify points with hearsay and dreams. Facts are what we are dealing with and relevant, justified opinions.

A percentage will be without applicable purpose too. What would a percentage prove? Does it need to be 33%, 50%, 100%? What if there's widespread hate crimes against Copts, but there's also a lot of "regular" crime? Does the "regular" crime invalidate the hate crime?


When?


I'm saying there is. What are we talking about here? I still don't understand what Europeans did to provoke the Barbary Pirates, but I guess please reply in a PM so we don't derail, or maybe a new thread. (Although, I daresay "The Barbary Slave Trade" might be a bit esoteric for this forum!)


Can you give me this information (presumably in PM to avoid derailing) on Christian pirates enslaving Muslims? It's news to me.


Witches and Communists are two dissimilar, unrelated ideologies, whereas the ideology of the radical North African Muslims in the 18th century and the radical North African Muslims in the 21st century is similar and related (it's the same).


Well, Slavery continues in North Africa to this day. It may not be officially state-sanctioned anymore (Mauritania got around to making it illegal it in 2007), but it's still quite entrenched in some countries. 21st century Muslim extremists continue to support the same policies as the 18th century Muslim extremists. The Barbary Pirates were quoted as being inspired by Islam, it was an example of Islamic Anti-Americanism and why the West feels the need to sponsor these more secular governments to try to keep radical Islam in check. And radical Islam is obviously relevant to the Egyptian Revolution.

But I don't actually agree with that sort of manipulative tactic. I figure Western countries should just sit back and watch Muslim countries go as radical as they like, and then they should close their doors to immigration from those countries, which will protect their citizens from terrorist attacks such as 9/11, 7/7, Moscow, Madrid, Fort Hood, et cetera. And if still attacked, then they should use full force to defend themselves. Let Muslim countries self-determine to attack, and let Western countries self-determine to defend.

The reason that having those statistics would help is because then I could run tests on the numbers (or could read tests other have run) to determine if those events fell above the statistical level of meaningfulness per capita unit of crime. If they don't, then they are statistically random entities. If they do, then it means that there is a criminal trend of meaningful levels to which the government should be approached about on the international stage. If there is a high trend, it means that there is an unofficial genocide occurring and we should send peace-missions in immediately to offer sanction to those being persecuted.

The rest of your points I've already responded to, responded to in PM, or have made my opinion clear and justified with unquestioned logic, so I assume that they have been taking into due consideration.

I'm probably too much of an optimist here. But I did say in the very END. The people CAN revolt, and they MIGHT. It's not hopless.

They might enjoy their lack of freedom, you never know. What is "the very end" then? When is "the very end?" it is not quantifiable nor justifiable. Don't bring hearsay and overoptimism into the forums, especially on a moot point like a second Algerian revolution.

Sheesh, drink coffee. it helps.


If i'm optimistic leave me that way. There's no reason to get hiper.

That was both irrelevant and annoying, it has been flagged.