Better Elected Islamists than Dictators
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 жов 2024
- The popular uprisings of the Arab Spring have left a leadership void that Islamist parties have been quick to fill. A longtime supporter of former strongmen like Egypt's Mubarak and Tunisia's Ben Ali, the U.S. now faces the uncomfortable result of Arab democracy-the rise of Islamist parties that are less amenable to the West than their autocratic predecessors. Will the Islamists, who once embraced violence, slowly liberalize as they face the difficulties of state leadership? Or will it mean the growth of anti-Americanism and radicalization in the region? Visit www.iq2us.org for research, results and more on the debate!
For: Reuel Mar Gerecht
For: Brian Katulis
Against: Daniel Pipes
Against: Dr. M Zudi Jasser
===================================
Subscribe: bit.ly/IQ2onYou...
Official site: iq2us.org/vote
IQ2US Twitter: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
IQ2US Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFac...
===================================
The debate should be framed SELF DETERMINATION - should Middle Eastern countries have the same right every other nation has to decide the kind of government it wants?
Thats true
I agree, besides Democracy is defined by the country not by us here. I mean, if you ask liberals and conservatives here what is democracy they'll agree on the party of voting but deffer on every other aspect. Democracy is fluid term.
kindly input english subtitles for those cant hear but can read... thank you...
Thank you for uploading this debate!
aren't islamists a sort of "group dictatorship" also?
as long as islamists or any group of religious group who think religious claims should govern lives, i would support dictatorship if it means secularizing society
-pro-Assad atheist
I'd like to point out that a significant portion of the middle east has had non-ideological dictators in power for decades and the state of the populations in each of those countries is in despair. To say that the status quo is better than democracy and self determination is a contradiction to our own values as Americans.
I agree with the moderator, this has been one of the best debates done so far.
What the 'Against' party seems to be forgetting is that when it came to the Shah of Iran, no matter how much pressure the US placed on him he still did not push through liberal reforms. The Shah continued with his own agenda of suppressing dissent and spending big on armaments, without any care for the rest of the economy. He wanted to make Iran the most militarily powerful nation in the Mid East, and was more focused on spending on the military than the people even when pressured by the West.
Can't believe this video only has 30.000+ views
One other thing to add:
Mohammed Mossadegh. A modern, arguably liberal, democratic leader of Iran from 1951 to 1953. But he was removed from power by the United States and replaced with a dictator. He was very much the model of what those against the motion argue for, and yet the US did not want him in power. they replaced him with an unpopular dictator who sought to minimise Islam, which made it the driving force for the revolution in 1979 and the Islamic government afterwards.
Ibn al-Haytham, Abu Rayhan al-Biruni, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, Muhamman ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Ibn Ishaq al-Kindi, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. Many Muslims throughout history have made significant contributions to the sciences, philosophy, and mathematics. It is ignorance which says Muslims have never contributed anything.
I can sum up the sides from camera perspective:
On the Left: Let the Middle East develop Democracy and the radical Islamists will eventually get voted out.
On the Right: We should continue to support Dictatorships and hope that we can either buy democracy or instill democracy...by coercion/force. Or not. We offer no method to actually mediate this transition of US backed dictatorship to an organic democracy but we deny the idea will have to do it by any sort of force and we simultaneously deny having to back dictatorships despite our side-namesake and our previous statements.
Ok but honestly, this debate was a mess. The official pro-dictator side was constantly somehow saying they actually don't want anything to do with dictators but just hate Islamists/muslims as rulers. And all the pro-democratic side did/had to do was keep saying: "Democracy is good. It may means Islamists first. But that's democracy. Let them decide. Let the Muslims decide". And yet the latter got painted as the ones insulting Muslims... by the Muslim suggesting that he can't trust his fellows to elect out radicals - hence the need for US-backed dictatorships.
So much for America being all about being the icon of the power of democracy.
9:30
opening statements begin
That depends entirely on how the constitution is drafted, and whether it can be changed/ammended, and what kind of majority the islamists would achieve. Democratic elections could result in a democracy that ends democracy and installs a theocracy instead.
great topic!
+harold barbosa Agreed, but rather poor debate.
Too many old people in the audience. How would they like to live under a dictator.
Oh, you wanted an Islamic thinker who made Islamic contributions to Western thought, all right then. Al-Ghazali. The single most influential Muslim philosopher and theologian next to the Prophet Mohammed. He and his Islamic philosophy influenced not just Islamic thought but also Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas; a Jew and a Christian who are important to Western thought.
Better Elected Islamists than Dictators?
Two sides of the same coin....
you know what is the difference between Qatar/UAE/Saudi and Venezuela/Cuba
is the amount of money on the bank
the result is the same if you have an islamist of a dictator
At 20:45 mins
"..the greedy elected dictator...Adolf Hitler was elected, wasn't he?"
Uh..nope.
He wasn't.
+Ralph Bernhard Actually he was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
Torjus Kallekleiv You might have missed this, at the bottom of the page.
"" A "combination of terror, repression and propaganda was mobilized in every... community, large and small, across the land."[6] To further ensure the outcome of the vote would be a Nazi majority, Nazi organizations "monitored" the vote process. In Prussia 50,000 members of the SS, SA and Stahlhelm were ordered to monitor the votes as deputy sheriffs by acting Interior Minister Hermann Göring.""
Today, an election with results achieved like that would not be considered valid.
Despite the heavy handed tactics, 57% of voters (a majority) voted against the NSDAP.
The last results which could be termed halfway fair, was that in the election of 1932.
+Ralph Bernhard " Today, an election with results achieved like that would not be considered valid. "
Come on, what dream land do you live in?? Bush committed voter fraud with the electronic counting machines and his brother. This has been shown beyond doubt now. Add to that, the judicial system stepped in at the time and FORCED the manual recount to be stopped as it would cause irreversible damage to Bush. NOT damage to the democratic process, rather, they are worried about a person!
If you honestly believe that there is any such thing as free choice in the vote, you are living in a dream. In most places in the west, we get carefully pre-selected people presented for our consumption. They are pre-purchesed, both parties, marketed to us and we can trot up on voting day to choose the man we want or at least the illusion of the man we want.
Jason Smith That is all correct.
However, my comment refers to the election in Nazi Germany in 1933, and the previous commentators insinuation that "Hitler had been voted".
That is an incorrect assertion, since the election was blatantly rigged and influenced.
One therefore cannot state that "Germans voted for Hitler".
When discussing the election in Germany in 1933, we are talking about 'dark central African'- conditions.
Your conclusion that results of the elections in the USA were 'fishy', is correct.
But I don't recall any accusations of MASS voter intimidation. For example HOARDS of official Republican gangs, walking around with baseball bats, trying to keep obvious and well-known democrats from voting. This happened in Germany, in 1933, when hoards of SA (the famous Brownshirts) went about hassling well-known German Social Democrats, Communists, and other opponents of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). They could also rely on a police force sympathetic to the right wing, and which 'looked away' when complaints were filed.
Therefore, one cannot really compare the obvious flaws with the US voting system, with that of Germany in 1933.
+Ralph Bernhard " But I don't recall any accusations of MASS voter intimidation. For example HOARDS of official Republican gangs, walking around with baseball bats, trying to keep obvious and well-known democrats from voting. "
No, its evolved far pass such crass methods. Now, they just make people illegible to being able to vote without even informing them. (Referring to the convicted voters being struck off) Research is pointing that less then 20% who were stopped from voting had any actual conviction or criminal history. They seemed to just used a scatter gun approach and wipe of the rights of everyone with a name similar to anyone convicted. Pretty smart approach really when trying to rig the outcome as the black population is disproportionately represented with convictions and the names can be similar across a wide range of families with no actual family ties and they are more likely to be dem voters.
+Ralph Bernhard " They could also rely on a police force sympathetic to the right wing, and which 'looked away' when complaints were filed. "
You mean like when unarmed people are executed in the streets? Or chocked out to death, or...........
eh, not the most interesting debate (and not just because Daniel Pipes is there... :x) it seems like the question was "Is an Islamic dictatorship worse than other types of dictatorships" rather than anything about democracy... :/
The central question of this debate seems to be "Which type of government will foster liberal, secular, modern people better, elected Islamists or non-Islamist dictators?". The answer seems to be the non-Islamist dictators. For one, they are not by definition committed to an ideology that is expressly non-liberal, while the Islamists are. The best argument on the side arguing for elected Islamists is that democracy will somehow foster liberalism by giving it a party which must compete in a fair democratic system. The problem with this argument is that Islamists will not allow for a fair democratic system once they take power.
Ba'athist/nationalist ideology is anti-liberal.
I don't understand the question. Islamists are just a kind of dictators. Better fruit or apples? Is the intent of the question to imply that Islamists aren't dictators as the premise to throw off the whole debate?
I am confused who won ? The one on the left or on the right?
Just skip to 17:00 to hear Daniel Pipes explain about the difference between dictators and Islamists.
At 9:34 is when they start, the first part is just introductions but now I'm outta here.
The poster above you wrote "practically illegal to not be an Islamist" and you responded "Sounds like The States". So really, now that you have clarified what you meant, you were wrong to write that, since the poster above you was making a very different point from yours.
interesting debate.i think it depends on the definition of dictator,if he is a respectful ruler then it would be ok(not guaranteed).democracy sounds good,but im not sure ive experienced it myself lol.if the system included a vote to reform the system itself, then yes.the depending factor seems to be a fear of islam?
@01:15,
No, it isn't. We have democracy as a utilitarian quality to protect individual rights, but individual rights, and not democracy, is the core value.
Kemal Attaturk was also a war hero.
That would have put a lot of weight to his argument.
He had a lot more leverage than your average run of the mill dictator...
+Ralph Bernhard Kamal Attaturk was not Muslim. He was Jewish from Albania.
before
That they even have to ask if an Islamist is better than a dictator already implies that it's perceived to be about as bad.
I was remarking on how funny it was that they weren't even trying to argue that 'Islam is not so bad'.
Dictatorship, colonialism, slavery..precipitous arrogance or what?...how badly can you insult people's intelligence and dignity?
This is why intellectuals don't run the world. They could argue any side of any argument.
I would agree with you.
False dichotomy.
+Mazdak Farrokhzad The way it was argued was. But the actual topic wasn't. The topic was "Is the proposition "Better Elected Islamists than Dictators" true or false". In that sense. "I don't know" or "They are about equal" is actually just "False".
saying never is rather pessimistic.
it is a rather tricky wicket though.
One main thing is ignored by those against the motion and those opposed... Will islamasist use WMD's if they have the chance.. Answer YES. End of story... Will the world be a safer place.. NO. End of Story.
Can we oppose both dictators and Islamists?
Since the intelligence in a lot of these debates is zero, what's the point of squaring it?
Dictators are regional and limited to a specified area...whereas the Islamists are not limited and it covers a large area its an ideology like the Nazis they are more dangerous
Point out the mistakes I made?
This motion is stupid.
Islamists cant be dictators?
Or non-Islamists cant be not dictators?
Social. Socialism.
Active. Activism.
Sex. Sexism.
You get the idea. You get the ideaism.
What about let the citizens of middle east decide their fate and destiny?
Just clapping for the first 9 minutes. Make it one minute for heaven's sake.
Why do we need to push around people of other parts of the world? Is none of our business.
Results of debate @ 1:46:50
Why is ,science refutes God blocked
cant go around banding some religion like Christians are angels
Thats what I thought. You cant point out the mistakes I made so as a result you are left with insults.
Super video / audio production quality as well as outstanding content. Subscribe to DemoCast channel on UA-cam to get more like this.
I find it horrifying that a devote Muslim would go against the sharia law.
AnimefreakHQ if the paricular law is unjust then it would be horrifying for them not too.
Dardy Gerard Then they should not lie to themselves and identify as Muslims.
AnimefreakHQ you do realize that there is no one sharia and that even Muslims don't see it as perfect. You just a bigot. Admit that.
Dardy Gerard Bigot against who?
AnimefreakHQ How could you be that clueless and dense.
I really don't understand how this is one of the best debates. It is one of the worst that i have seen so far. They kept splitting hairs and not being honest about their intentions or positions.
Your comparison is terribly false. Horrible persecutions of minorities go on in Islamic countries such as Egypt. I lived as a practicing Jew for 35 years in Canada and USA, and not for one second were my religious rights in the slightest way contested.
Did my remark say anything about the persecutions in these countries? No, I only compared the fact that you HAVE to be a "good" Christian to be the president of US - otherwise you won't stand a chance in hell getting elected. Try to stand up and say that you don't believe in religions at all in The States and see the reaction! Just look at the anchors from Fox News...
So my comparison is not false at all, but you just committed a great straw man...
My IQ is 132 and yes America does have a say so in global affairs. We're the worlds lone superpower, thats how these things work. Now go and get mad.
mursi just made himself a dictator...
As I write this it's the 7th of January 2018. There are protests in Iran, hopefully they will end well. But Turkey has been getting worse and worse in the time between this debate and now.
Your statement seems to be indicative of a wrong way of thinking about the people of the world that seems all too common. The world is not our lab experiment, we have no right to alter the way if life or power struggle of other nations, and their issues are not our problem. We need to leave other nations alone and respect national sovernty. This is very important for our political, financial, and domestic stability. The world is not our experiment, nor should it be viewed as such.
YaY! To the old fellow at the 1:27:20.
Should I then have said: "Sounds like Israel" instead? :-)
Interesting to read , " ~The hero with a thousand faces " by Joseph Campbell and, " The Golden Bough " by Sir James Frazer. Also interesting to look at the pre islamic religions of the Arabic peninusla, Levant , ancient Near East.
I'm sorry, what did you say? Your sentances have so many grammatical mistakes that I cannot comprehend what you're trying to say.
This is not a debate, it's a nightclub comedy act ... and the silly way the winners are determined by changing minds, even if change was only 1 person that was still in the minority.
This is nonsense - form, format and content.
There is only one true God
Godwin's Law at 0:20:30 j
OUr econmic GDP is twice that of China.... Keep trying