It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Percentage of Muslim Fundamentalists Destroys A Western Democracy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:34 PM
With Bush urging President Musharraf to hold free and fair elections in Pakistan

I thought it would be useful to reflect on what (roughly) is the percentage (population wise) of religious fanatics that destroys a western democracy?

There are two types of Muslim fundamentalists…
1. The co-operative: They’ll try to win through the democratic process (even if they’re religious beliefs are a bit backward).
2. The non-cooperating, killers: These people will try to win through the democratic process so they can damage it, and they agree with terrorism against the populace so they can manipulate it.

Obviously it’s the latter type we have to worry about most.
I’ve heard that in Pakistan fundamentalist parties only gain about 10-15% of the vote.
But given that this 10-15% are mostly Taliban, surely we should be worrying about how far they can punch above their weight with dead civilians in one hand, and the middle pages of the Koran in the other? Pakistan does after all have the atomic bomb.

If Pakistan was America this 10-15% would be 30 to 45 million people. But instead it’s more like 16.9 to 25.3 million people. However even if only 1% of this 10-15% are actually willing to blow themselves up that’s still about
169,000 to 253,500 suicide bombs. Great!!! Good luck pro-western democracy!!

So we urgently need something like Game Theory
but on “suicide theory” instead;
nothing could be more important when we are encouraging democracy in a world of religious fundamentalists.

On Musharraf
I understand that Musharraf has lost support because of Pakistan’s involvement with the Western worlds war against the Taliban…
1. (Very good link)

So (despite the last article) it looks as though if Musharraf does have free and fair elections he is history…

One has to ask: “If president Musharraf has defied the will of Pakistan’s people by getting “so” involved with the war on terror; then why would a more democratic Pakistan be more useful in the fight against terrorism?”

After All Democracy Can Fail…
In Iraq it is certainly scheduled to kick us out in 2009’s Iraqi elections…

And most probably hand power to Iran…

Iran plots Iraq Takeover
Iran trying influence Iraqi Spies
Iran others to help U.S withdraw
Iran urges us out
Iran support of Iraqi Militias destabilising… (no doubt they’ll sort the mess out!!!)
Here’s a prophetic 2003 article by Christian Fundamentalists the Republican Party should be familiar with:

Basically 60% of Iraqis are Shiite, Iran is a Shiite country and if it hadn’t been for 20th century empires many Iraqis would in fact be part of Iran today. They only went to war with Iran because Saddam was (at the time) a pro-American, pro western lifestyle, Sunni. He oppressed them and therefore made Iraqis fight the monster of religious fundamentalism across his border.

Democracy Has Also Failed…
Palestine: There was a time when the West was urging Palestinians to be more democratic. So what do, they do?
They elect Hamas with an overwhelming majority. Now why would people who had ownership of Israeli territory for 2000 years, and who got kicked of with little or even no compensation do a thing like that? Especially when for every Israeli killed there are about 10 dead Palestinians:
Or is it 12 to 1?

Anyway point made; surely it’s slightly wacko to expect people to elect democratic representatives in the interests of the west, after they’ve experienced something like what the Palestinians have?

Musharraf: I believe this guy is a good dictator.
He is certainly stupid at time (like when he sends the army into the Red Mosque) (since he should have just let the terrorists and hostages inside starve to death e.g. without water, as he could then pin the populaces far greater crime of violating the Mosques religious status squarely on them). He would have slightly less popular with the dictatorship of China, but at least his entire grip on power would not have been so severally dented by the whole incident, he didn’t, he sent the army in.

But surely it’s plain for all to see Musharraf is helping us against the Taliban more than any leader with a democratic mandate ever could?
And there is a saying that: “if something works; don’t fix it” well the worst case scenarios for Pakistan are surely way too serious for the sake of minor western ideological preferences?

In the U.K we like to go along with the U.S in telling other countries how to crack down Muslim Fundamentalists. However in 40 percent of own Muslims want Sharia Law introduced
(You know; where you get to stone women to death for adultery)
I'm sorry about PC but in the words of Saddam these people are “backward” anyone who wants to stone women to death is backward simple as.
This raises the hypothetical question: “If the majority of the U.K was Muslim (instead of only 1.5 out of 60 million people) would democracy fail in the U.K?”
Sadly the question that’s facing nuclear armed, Pakistan isn’t so hypothetical.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:48 PM
I can't speak about the Middle East directly in answer to your question.

However, if you can provide the number of religious fanatics in Iraq currently, I believe that would be your answer. Our democracy is going down the tubes, partially because we are in a war in that country. It is certainly one of the final straws breaking the proverbial camel's back anyway.

So, how many religious fanatics in Iraq, because that is the number bringing down our own (USA) western democracy.

Wow am I in a weird mood tonight. I hope I didn't wander too far off your topic. Maybe I should take a hint and just go to bed for some sleep.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 01:55 PM
Thanks MajorMalfunction; however I think Iraq has several (maybe more) times the number of fanatics required to destroy a democracy. The current Iraqi government is actually a lame duck because it won't be re-elected, and its particularly lame given how not only can't it rule very far outside the green zone, but it's also infiltrated by democratically elevated fanatics (making the terrorism worse) and therefore it will have been since first elected (since that's where they're power stems from).

Anyway who else here thinks that free and fair elections in Pakistan is a bad idea?

Why does Dubya want free and fair elections when this will almost certainly mean less Pakistani support for fighting the Taliban?
Why is he prepared to risk a democratic Pakistani administration doing what the Pakistanis want in this respect, and if it won't do what they want then why is he so concerned about it being democratic?
In brief what has Musharraf done wrong; what advise from us has he refused to follow that democratic a government would be less likely to refuse-follow?


log in