“His non-assasins – the democracy protestor -; men and women, young and old, secular and religious, Muslim and Christian, rich and poor; have shown day after day in Tahrir Square that, like Islambouli, they were not afraid to die, but unlike him they would not resort to violence except in self defence (against hired thugs in uniform or not). And again, unlike Islambouli, their motivation has been democracy, self respect, and human rights. The army should respect their sacrifices and their liberal sentiments and quickly give the Egyptian people the democracy they so richly deserve.” (READ IT ALL HERE)
So the people in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria were ‘democrats’, I’ll give it to him, they were democrats with a small ‘d’, the type that love mob rule and with an Islamic twist. I see nothing to cheer about, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood posed to become that much more emboldened in their agenda and more clever in its execution.
In Iran there was a clear choice, as clear as it gets in the ME, deposing a fanatical mullocracy with its finger on a nuclear trigger, regardless of what kind of secular rabble, even Marxists, would have been preferable to what’s still in place. From a US perspective, regime change in Egypt with a Muslim Brotherhood posed to exert even more influence in the country’s politics, is not preferable to an authoritarian Mubarak regime. Pure and simple. KGS
NOTE: It’s also an entirely dubious assertion that Coptic Christians are ecstatic over the thought that they’ll now attain official “dhimmi” status under the fundamuslims.