I've heard the talking heads in the media gush on about Egypt's "peaceful" protests bringing about their "freedom" for two days now. it left me wondering how the hell these folks define the word "freedom". "freedom" to them is apparently living in a country ruled by the military, at least that's how they define freedom for Egyptians in Egypt. somehow I don't think that if it were them they would be okay with that. If the US was being run by the joint chiefs of staff I believe they would be speaking against the notion. why the doublethink? It would seem obvious that freedom takes more work than protesting a despot. but, that's not what you're hearing from the talking heads today. huh.
One of the stories not getting a whole lot of attention at the same time all this is going on is that many of Europe's leaders declared multiculturalism a failure over there. there is no peace, and therefore, no freedom when you have two cultures competing for supremacy in the same nation. when one culture treasures personal freedom and the other culture treasures sharia, that does not even recognize the basic concept OF personal freedom there is an obvious problem. apparently after all these years, Europe's leadership is now coming to recognize the fact.
How do we all get along when differing groups have differing outlooks on life? seems tough especially when one group espouses a convert to my way or die mentality. how can one think "basic human rights" and "convert or die" can get along?
It does seem these two get along for some reason, leftist groups espousing their claimed belief in "basic human rights" have been in bed with Islamists from before the second world war. The Muslim brotherhood's motto is:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
The founder of this group, Hassan al-Banna, was a good buddy of socialist Adolf Hitler and they held quite similar goals, aims and view's between them. even most Leftists today understand Hitler's view of the world and rightly despise it, yet, chide the world for not being "open-minded" about Islam. huh? I don't get it, unless it is some idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. after all, how long do you think a human rights activist would last espousing their opinions on the streets of Mecca right now? so, the question is, who do these groups think their enemy is? and just how far is either side willing to go to accommodate their "friend"? will code pink and the like take up wearing burqua's? help stone adulterers? perhaps help chop a few hands off of some hungry street waifs who stole a biscuit? kill a few infidels? will the other friend lay off the Idea of sharia, at least tolerate seeing a woman's ankle without thinking they should be raped and beaten for this "exposure"?
Just who do these groups view as their enemy? and will "discussion and understanding" ever be enough? history shows an answer, and it's an answer nobody wants to hear. the discussion nearly always eventually falls to violence where Humans are concerned. then the winner gets to write the history about the conflict.