And it came to pass President Obama Bin Laden tried to put pressure on the Egyptian rulers by cutting part of the (substantial) aid the Country receives, and found himself with the face against a solid wall of opposition not only from Israel, but from countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, who cannot see with favour incendiary fanatics staying in power in such a key country like Egypt and thereby destabilising the entire region.
It seems like the local governments understand very well where the danger lies; whilst Obama, half a planet away, is more concerned with looking good with his rather cretinous “hope and change” electorate than with promoting stability in the region.
That Obama doesn't care two straws for persecuted Christians was already known; he is, in fact, a cultural Muslim without the faith, forced to frequent a nominally Christian church merely because of his political ambitions. What is interesting, is that in many Middle Eastern Countries the US will now be seen as the enemy of stability, and the helper of Islamist fanatics.
But will the Gay President, at least, succeed? We do not know, but the signs aren't good. I read around that several countries (mainly, I assume, oil rich ones) will step in to integrate the aid loss now announced. This will make the countries that have stepped in double angry, and the Obama administration will have to think twice before they go on with the aid Spiel. In the end, someone will probably tell him that “hope and change” games won't go far in the Middle East, and the open hostility of traditionally allied countries is far more probable. What a sorry mess this marketing – driven foreign policy has put the old US of A in…
Congratulations, Obama Bin.
You manage to surprise us again and again.
The outrage about the recent, bloody events in Egypt has already spread everywhere, and from the Gay US President to the similarly spineless European leaders everyone is distributing the usual statements: restraints, peace, love, understanding, and chocolate cookies.
I wish some of those sunday philanthropists would explain to me how they would suggest to deal with people who are violent persecutors of Christians when they are in power, and violent persecutors of Christians when other Muslims oust them from power. “Dialogue” is – as so often – a very stupid word in such circumstances, because you can only dialogue with one ready and willing to do the same. If, however, the “dialogue” is just an excuse to pursue a violent Islamist agenda, than it is far better to allow the tank, the machine gun and the pistol to do the talking. Their language is, I am told, universally understood, particularly because it is a language that could not care less whether the recipient truly understands it.
What we are witnessing in Egypt is the usual modern brainless, media-driven emotionalism by which the real persecutor, and real violent danger, is allowed to present itself as the voice of oppressed justice, or the innocent lamb slaughtered by the evil soldier.
Innocent lamb, my foot. Ask the Christians in Egypt how “just” these people are; ask the moderate, decent Egyptians how “innocent”. Their tale will be much different from the Gay President's.
in Egypt, sanity is – at least provisionally – back to power; and when sanity has to deal with madness and fanaticism, blood will be spilled. Let us not mince words here: no one wishes the death of anyone, but if in such a situation it comes to violence – and come to violence it must, for the reason just described – I know on which side I hope the dead are.
This is not a situation fitting for the usual rhetoric. The soul of the Middle East is at stake in the destiny of one of its most important Countries. This will not be solved by talking, much less by talking bollocks. One side and one side only will win, and will crush the other.
Let us hope and pray reason wins over fanaticism. How much blood of senseless idiots is spilled in the process is, whilst deplorable in itself, not an argument.
I have often noticed in the past that when Christians hurry to help Muslims, the latter are generally appreciative of the matter only for as long as the emergency goes on; but as soon as Christians have taken them out of the shite, the help received is soon forgotten.
Take Bosnia, where a coalition of – in his absolutely vast majority – Christian countries risks lives and material to save muslims from indiscriminate carnage, without this having any long-lasting effect on the prejudice of too many Muslims towards Christianity.
Or take Iraq, when (again) the armies of Christian countries free a 28-million people from an extremely cruel dictator, from whose heel the Iraqi themselves had never had the gut to free themselves. Here too, within 48 hours the jubilations had left place to complaints because, hey, electricity has not come back yet. After six months, complaining about the Americans had become more fashionable than a drug addicted poof stylist. The simple fact that just a handful of months before everyone would have died just for complaining had already been conveniently forgotten.
In the last days, we are assisting to a new episode of this new, three-tongued, arab-muslim little game. The intervention is good in principle, but of course the way it is being made has already been criticised by a very high ranking arab official with, oh what a coincidence, political ambitions in Egypt. Chap obviously says, one day after when the news has gone through the entire Arab world, that he has been misinterpreted, so he now has both sides hedged. Inevitably, he and the Arab countries in general will end up saying that no, they were certainly not for doing things as they have been done; it will be, as always, us being very bad, imperialists, & Co.; not before the backside of the inhabitants of Bengasi has been saved by the intervention of Christian countries, of course.
And now please raise his hand who believes that Muslim countries would have risked their men and material in a military operation meant to avoid Christians massacring each others.
Egypt has recalled its ambassador to the Vatican after Egypt found itself in the exclusive lists of the countries singles out by the Holy Father for not doing enough to protect Christians (he forgot India and Pakistan, I would say; but perhaps he thought these last two go sans dire).
The Egyptians complain that the security of Christians in Egypt is an internal matter of the Egyptian government. This might well be, but the Pope hasn’t said that he wants to run the Egyptian security policy; he has merely said that they are not doing enough.
I think, though, that a great embarrassment hides behind this uncomfortable reaction. It is not advisable for any government (particularly if relying on massive transfers from the US to stay halfway afloat and last time I looked only Israel received more transfer from the US than Egypt) to be in the black list of the Vatican and to be branded as a country not doing enough to protect Christians. I doubt that even Iran would look without worry to a similar situation but whilst Iran doesn’t have to be worried about the effect on their purse of 70 millions US Catholics, Egypt does.
Let us, then, register this little diplomatic scuffle as a sure sign that the Pope’s move will force the Egyptian government to deal with the matter rather than limiting itself to the usual whining of third world (please substitute this with the politically correct expression) fake democracies (please do it again).