Since the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt and established a make-shift government, life for Christians and Jews there has taken a considerably darker turn.
In recent days, crazed servants of the Brotherhood have crucified, that's right-CRUCIFIED naked on trees, non-Muslims who have resisted the new government and the superiority of Sharia. Of Egypt's 80million people, as many as 10% are Christian and Jews. What's to become of these "infidels"?
That non-Muslim Egyptians are threatened in any way is testament to the fact that Islam, as we have posted times too numerous to count, is a savage, primitive cult of barbarism and brutality and has no place in the modern world among civilized people.
I wonder if Obama will continue sending $1.5Billion a year in military and civilian aid to them?
7 comments:
I would say that the administration made mistake in overthrowing Hosni Mubarak were it not for the fact that destabilizing the region and creating this kind of infighting was the very raison d'état.
What does the Obama administration have to gain by the MB being in charge in Egypt?
I agree that we should have supported Mubarak, but democrats have a habit of abandoning mid-east dictators who are our "friends" in favor of chaos and Sharia.
"...democrats have a habit..."
Is it just democrats, Ed? Didn't Bush do the same thing to Afghanistan and Iraq? Didn't Eisenhower do it to Iran?
I'm just sayin'.
Eisenhower? We installed the Shah as our puppet in Iran and everything was hunky-dory until the idiot Carter decided Iran no longer needed to be the educational, cultural, and agricultural shining city on a hill for the middle east. Carter(D) preferred a backwards, barbaric Islamist regime instead.
We were happy with Mubarak being our ruthless dictator in Egypt, and Egypt prospered with that....(it's the only form of government that works in that part of the world).
In fact, you can say the same thing about Iraq. Saddam was our dictator....but he got too big for his britches. If he had just raped and pillaged and gased his people every now and then, we'd probably leave him alone. That's the difference, republicans like mid-east dictators too, but when they get out of control, we get rid of them under the guise of importing democracy. Democrats unthinkingly yank the rug out from under anybody regardless of the consequences if it helps them sleep better in their smug altruism and humanity.
"We installed the Shah as our puppet in Iran and everything was hunky-dory...."
Hunky-dory for whom, Ed? The Iranians whom the Shah tortured, maimed and killed?
According to my Iranian friends here whom I've interviewed at length, and who still have family in Iran, life under the Shah was not that bad and certainly preferable to under Sharia and the current regime. Tehran basically looked like any other large progressive city in the middle east such as Tel-Aviv or Beirut, before the fighting started.
Who's to say a benevolent dictator in charge is worse for the people than crazed Islamo-moonbats?
I, personally, would rather that we had not interferred in the internal affairs of Iran and had let democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh serve Iran as the voters wished.
Post a Comment