You don’t think this was Totalitarian ?

Even if you were right, what’s your point?

Your distinction and subsequent comments beggar belief. I am not going to engage you on the extraordinary perspective of considering 95% of a country (ie as you say black people of that time) as just a perspective of SOME.

Wow!

You have introduced Autocratic to the debate, that was not the substantive disagreement.

Autocratic:

1
pertaining to or of the nature of autocracy or of an autocrat; ABSOLUTE: autocratic government.
2.
like an autocrat; tyrannical; despotic; domineering: autocratic behavior; an autocratic person.

In what way does ABSOLUTE, differ from TOTAL ?

Please man.

PS Are you aware of any AUTOCRACY, that was not TOTALITARIAN ?

I certainly hope you are not studying Politics.

Descriptions: (So that you can see for yourself)

Totalitarianism is an all-encompassing system of political rule that is typically established by pervasive ideological manipulation and open terror and brutality. Totalitarianism differs from autocracy and authoritarianism in that it seeks ‘total power’ through the politicization of every aspect of social and personal existence. (Autocratic and authoritarian regimes have the more modest goal of a monopoly of political power, usually achieved by excluding the masses from politics). Totalitarianism thus implies the outright abolition of civil society: the abolition of ‘the private’. (HEYWOOD, A. 2007. Politics. Palgrave Foundations. 478p)

As you can see, both regimes can be used to describe Apartheid, but it depends from which angle you look at it.
I hope the misunderstanding is clarified.

As a queer, with Jewish heritage, who likes to write, perhaps you can understand…. this is not good enough for me.

And you can bet your bottom dollar, one day, something will not be good enough for you too.

TIME will tell.

JP

And in that sense, most of these nations are conservative. They have great incentives to oppose the destabilizing forces of such militant extremism.

I believe Shari’a has been adopted in Nigeria only in Zamfara State. This is a small district with about 2.5% of the country’s population. That is actually relevant to my point. Here is a large Muslim country with a stable, (mostly) democratic government and a clear incentives to maintain the status quo. Even domestically, the more extreme notion of Shari’a law represents a tiny minority of the country.

PS Nigeria is not secular, the northern half has Sharia Law.

Thanks for the discussion.

http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/

No, Islam is not by nature fascist, but this engagement is not with Islam, this war is not with Islam.

So then why an appeal to Islam ?

Thats the point of the piece.

Obama’s view I will summarize as the belief that Muslim extremism is an outlier in the larger Muslim world, and that American interests are well served by reaching out to the mainstream part of that world. Despite a careful reading, I cannot put my finger exactly on your rebuttal of that.

Historicaly, there are centuries-worth of mainstream, moderate Muslim governance. You mention Bali: Indonesia is the world’s fourth largest country, the largest Muslim country, and has no significant history of Muslim extremism. (Bali itself, by the way, is almost entirely Hindu.)

Of the top ten Muslim population countries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_countries], seven — Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Sudan, and Algeria — scarcely bump the needle in terms of rampant acts of religious extremism. All are led by stable governments, whether fiercely secular like Turkey and Nigeria, or not. (I suppose Sudan is a tragically unique case, but religion seems to have little to do with its problems.)

Even a case like Saudi Arabia is instructive. Certainly the government is stringent in terms of enforcing a Muslim state (although even that is blunted by the many ways they turn a blind eye to Western ways in their culture, and especially by their citizens traveling or living abroad). But there can be no doubt that the ruling monarchy values stability over instability, moderation over extremism. They are the ones who exiled bin Laden, after all. The challenge they face, like many ruling governments in these countries, is that they fear the instability that could result from cracking down too hard on such extremists. Their desire to preserve the status quo forces them to tolerate a certain amount of religious extremism, which absolutely is NOT the same thing as desiring, promoting, or encouraging that extremism.

So, if your point is that the Muslim world is one big homogenous pit of extremism, utterly lacking fertile soil for Obama’s outreach, then I must disagree.

http://XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PS: I still think youre a wicked coomunist!

A good way of showing support and shared values to the middle east would be to take a hard line approach against Israel, instead of condoning their genocide of the Palestinians. He should also prioritise the extraction of US forces from the middle east and allow them to sort their own problems out, they are tired of constant US interference and threats.

My latest contribution to Konkret (June 2009) offers an analysis of the election results in South Africa. The magazine from Hamburg will be on sale tomorrow. Read some excerpts here.

http://rubeneberlein.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/south-africa-big-man-jacob-zuma/

Unlike you I have considerably less faith in our legal and justice systems.
If our courts found someone not guilty or gave them a light sentence does not necessarily imply that they are innocent. Take for example: Tony Yengeni, or Jacob Zuma for that matter, or even Mr Shaik getting out after only 2 years of a 15 year sentence.

Are you the lawyer who defended XXXXXXXXXXXXXX(edited out)?

keep them coming.

I have many journalist friends, whose integrity I have come to respect over the years. This tired response that you should not believe what you read is, simply put misguided. It applies to opinion, not to fact. If, as our dear Athol and his madam wish to suggest that the story is a lie, then our courts upon proof would make the Times fork out big time !!!

Do you see a law suit ?

I don’t.

The fact remains that there are respectable reporters and rags, should we cling to this idea of not believing what we read then we can also conclude that:

1. Zuma was never charged with anything.
2. Shabir is a humanitarian.
3. Global warming is a myth.
4. The president of the US is not Obama.

Its about degree.

Forget these absolutes.

Please man.

As if, I read one book.

Sir, whilst newspapers are prone to editorial bias, I hope you do not suggest that MR Hartley and the times made this up?

Do you ?