http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx
Coptic Christians have been subject to attacks from Muslim extremists through Egypt for years. In response, the moderate Muslim majority decided enough was enough. Literally thousands of Muslims came out during Coptic Christmas celebrations to serve as human shields to deter extermist attacks.
So, wondering where all the moderate Muslims are? Standing shoulder to shoulder between you and the terrorists, that's where.
------------------
Epsilon
Awesome. That is the only word I have for this.
Unfortunately, I can't see it doing much, as most extremists view their moderate counterparts to be about as unclean as the rest of us. At least we know where the moderates stand, though.
This does come to mind about the human shield thing. Sadly, it shows how much of a geek I can be.
“I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light.“ --Delenn, B5, before the Grey Council, in “Babylon Squared“
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor
wow. It's stuff like this that gives me hope there may be peace in my lifetime.
-Terry
-----
"so listen up boy, or pornography starring your mother will be the second worst thing to happen to you today"
TF2: Spy
/QUOTE/
Iran's PressTV, an official organ of the Islamic Republic, claimed in an unsigned editorial that "the fresh plot by terrorists to target churches is an organized Zionist scenario aimed at creating a rift between Muslims and Christians." Lebanese Shi'ite leader Sheikh Abdel Amir Kabalan struck a tone so similar as to give the impression that a set of talking points were being circulated: "This terrorist act bears the fingerprints of Zionists who keep on targeting religious sites and are working to . . . sow discord between Muslims and Christians."
/END QUOTE/
hmelton
hmelton Wrote:/QUOTE/
Iran's PressTV, an official organ of the Islamic Republic, claimed in an unsigned editorial that "the fresh plot by terrorists to target churches is an organized Zionist scenario aimed at creating a rift between Muslims and Christians." Lebanese Shi'ite leader Sheikh Abdel Amir Kabalan struck a tone so similar as to give the impression that a set of talking points were being circulated: "This terrorist act bears the fingerprints of Zionists who keep on targeting religious sites and are working to . . . sow discord between Muslims and Christians."
/END QUOTE/
Yeah right, pull the other one. Sure a certain Jewish faction could be behind it all, but it could also be Iranian ordered destabilization op.
Actually Iran would have been more believable or more accurately it would have been a surprise if they had claimed it was aliens.
If I remember correctly Iran has also formally arrested, convicted and shot a group of squirrels for spying for Israel. I also think they have claimed a plague of Locust was being guided by mind control beams from Israel. I think I've also read about several rants about the Christians and Jews causing the milk to sour in the heard animals.(Not sure if it was Iran or another nearby nation.)
ALSO there is this interpretation
It's pretty much common knowledge in the middle east that Iran is a big player in the Muslim terror going on world wide, usually when someone speaks up against it, especially in the middle east they can expect terror attacks aimed at them, but for Iran to claim it was the Jews means that for this moment they are not making the people shielding the Christians in Egypt a public target.
hmelton
And according to
this tweet by edsetiadi Egyptian Christians are now saying they will stand between Muslim protesters and police during Friday prayers.
-----
Will the transhumanist future have catgirls? Does Japan still exist? Well, there is your answer.
The tweet is gone now.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Bob Schroeck Wrote:The tweet is gone now.
So's the rest of Egypt on the 'net.
Looks like just shutting off Facebook and Twitter didn't do anything but get the public even more pissed off. I think things are going to get ugly over there. Mubarak's sacked his government and promised all sorts of reforms, but I don't think it's gonna save him at this point.
I suspect Mubarak will be able to weather this. It's been a while, and the shine has started to wear off, the protests don't seem to be building up momentuum and he's had enough time to get his feet on the ground. Or perhaps I'm just cynical and pessimistic.
On the flip side, the Canadian government has just told Canadian citizens to leave Egypt while they still can. We don't do that very often...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
The Egyptian Army has been surprisingly tolerant of the protesters. It makes me wonder if they actually support the civilians' POV. It wouldn't surprise me, really, because most revolutions take place with the full or partial assistance from the armed forces. Mubarak may very well be digging his own metaphorical grave here by sending in the troops.
The BBC news story I read about this mentioned that the police were out, but were engaged in generalised law and order duties rather than confronting the protestors. However, it did mention that the resulting order was not conducive to the development of an "overthrow the goverment" atomsphere. It also mentioned faultlines in the protestors, between the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest.
However it also mentioned that there was "Overthrow Mubarak" grafitti on some police vehicles. I have no idea what that would imply though. Could be anything from protective camoflague through insufficent cleaning staff to joining the protest.
And it's now being openly stated that the military "will not use force against the protestors".
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make
anything explode.
The Egyptian army relies on slaves--only the officer corp are volunteers. That can work if they're used against an external threat, or if you can dupe them into believing that they're being used against an external threat, but tends not to work so well when you want to use them against their friends and relatives.
Uhm... is that really the right term for it?
blackaeronaut Wrote:Uhm... is that really the right term for it?
A lot of people conflate "conscript" (someone who is forced to enlist) and "slave" (someone who is property and forced to obey his owner). It's sloppy thinking at best, propaganda at worst.
As far as I know, there haven't been slave soldiers in the Middle East since the Janissaries were disbanded.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Even then, the Janissaries weren't slaves. They were conscripted from Christian POWs and slaves. In fact, they were probably the first iteration of the modern military in that they were paid regularly (albeit out of the Sultan's own pocket), marched and drilled to music, wore uniforms, and primarily used firearms.
Ref. here.
robkelk Wrote:blackaeronaut Wrote:Uhm... is that really the right term for it?
A lot of people conflate "conscript" (someone who is forced to enlist) and "slave" (someone who is property and forced to obey his owner). It's sloppy thinking at best, propaganda at worst.
As far as I know, there haven't been slave soldiers in the Middle East since the Janissaries were disbanded.
Oh, is that what he was asking? Yes, "conscription" is certainly a form of slavery. Some people like to lie to themselves that it isn't, generally because their own government practices it (or they're from the US, where the government used to practice it and most of the citizens suffer from an almost pathological inability to face up to all the awful things that Washington has done). It doesn't change the problems governments have using them against their own people.
Incidentally, the Janissaries were slaves, and they were mostly recruited by kidnapping children and then brainwashing them--sort of a forerunner to the 20th century Hitler Youth and Young Pioneers, although obviously the Janissaries were around a lot longer.
Conscription isn't slavery - conscripted soldiers draw a salary. It doesn't even fit the definition of "forced labour" unless the salary is barely above living costs, or is only considered to pay off the training/equipment/etc.
The Janissary situation is also a little more complicated than you give it credit for; indeed, one of the main opposing forces to the Ottoman Empire attempting to modernise was the fact the Janissaries had become the power behind the throne and could depose any Sultan they didn't like - not exactly correlating to the power wielded by the Hitler Youth. They were not kidnapped past the very early Ottoman years (the very first were young war captives, not children) but part of the devshirme system - for all intents and purposes, the children were a levied tax on certain Christians (mostly; Jews were exempt but there was a similar levy on Bosnian Muslims from time to time, although they weren't technically Janissaries) in certain areas (mostly the Balkans, and rural areas only) that were not in certain careers (any skilled craftsman was exempt, so were cases where it was determined taking the children would cause excessive economic hardship to the parents). That being said, the Janissaries WERE slave soldiers (so were the Mamluks in Egypt; that is in fact what a "Mamluk" is) - but what that meant then and what people automatically think it means now are entirely different things.
I don't support conscription, BTW (although I don't exactly oppose it, either - conscripted militaries versus volunteer ones have several pros and cons) - but calling it slavery simply isn't accurate.
(Edit for a bit more clarity/info on the Janissaries, who are pretty interesting!)
I can sorta see where the conscription = slavery comes from, but if you expand the term that broadly it looses it's meaning and impact. Conscription is forced, yes, and you have to obey your superiors within limits, but it's not for life, and you get paid, and conscripts still have quite a lot of rights. If you must compare it to forced farm workers look at indentured servitude, it tends to be a lot closer, although there people typically volunteered.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
In fact, indentured servitude is also a form a slavery (and is sometimes known as "debt slavery"). It was common in the Thirteen Colonies before being replaced by the much better known system of chattel slavery of Africans in the 18th century.