What a lot of the people who post here overlook is the state based nature of radical muslim terrorism. The Arab spring may very well see radical muslim extremists with a great deal of control in countries that were content to oppress their own people, Egypt, Libya, Syria, but under the influence of the muslim brotherhood, may in the years ahead become an exporter of violence like Iran and Iraq were or at least become bases of operation like afghanistan was. Radical muslim extremism is dangerous because of its state sponsorship, its desire through its state sponsorship to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, and the way they are not percieved as the level of threat they deserve. All muslims are not terrorists but "main stream" muslims aren't the ones we are worried about. If they controlled the governments in Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria there wouldn't be the danger. They don't control those countries and the former dictatorships are falling apart but won't be replaced by "moderate" muslims.
In the video I posted on "The Soviet Story," it shows a small newspaper clip of a little known political party in Germany, you know, the Nazis. A lot of intellectuals and political figures in he west talked about them the way they are talking about the muslim brotherhood today. We may very well be in the modern version of 1920's europe with the "Arab spring." The only thing holding back the extremists before was the strong man dictators who wanted to oppress the people. The radical muslim extremists aren't content to do the same thing. They want these countries so they can eventually spread their faith. The other thing that will slow down the radical muslim terrorist types is the fact that the countries they take control of through the "arab spring," are in such bad straights.
The desire to dismiss the threat now, may very well be the same mistake made with the socialists in Germany, Italy and Russia back then.
Well, the 'little known party' was a direct result of the demands and contracts and obligations following WWI.
(and no, Hitler was not elected, because such was the mechanics of power in the Weimar republic: The President is elected (It was v Hindenburg, WWI veteran, staunch
monarchist) who then had ole Adolf as his 'running mate' the Chancelor to be appointed (If you will Hindenburg, well in his 80s at the time was the Trojan horse for the Nazis.)
Following that debacle the constitution was reworked following 1945.
So, to get back to your brotherhood....
They may or may not end up in power. They certainly have the advantage of already being a formed group with all the necessary infrastructures and the 'who is who'
However, many of the countries you listed have a huge population that is very young. And many of them have grown restless with the same old people in power. people far removed from reality.
Also, the lot of the countries you named, I think oil is always the common denominator. When the Indonesians topple the president, it's a footnote, though most people there are Muslim, too.
Also, another detour through history, the mess of the middle east started when the land was carved up willy nilly into countries without any regard to the ethnicity of the people there.
I know you don't want to hear it, but the people in Iran have little in common with the people just across the border in Iraq, and much less yet with the people in Tunesia or Algeria....except they roll under the catch all of 'Muslim'
But of course, there is the devil in the detail: Not all are created equal. Not all behave the same way or share the same values (maybe not all of them were being kept on chains by the west for so long for their natural riches)
There is a real danger in those countries, that is true.
However islamophobics don't do it justice or come even close to the point: The social structures of those countries is unstable. That always happens when there are a lot of people with no money and nothing to do.
That's what happened in Germany in the late 1920s when a lot of the middle class people found themselves hit hard by the depression and the ongoing cost of the war (reparation payments were initially open ended, a modified version put an end to them in 19
86) spending their days in line for welfare.
heck, if things continue the way they are now in the US you can expect something along this line here, too.
