Better Elected Islamists Than Dictators IQ2 + PBS

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?

For: Reuel Marc Gerecht
For: Brian Katulis

Against: Daniel Pipes
Against: Dr. M Zuhdi Jasser

===================================

===================================

[sachamm]

Can't say enough good things about the format of these debates, especially having the moderate interrogate the debaters and summarize the arguments -- and Donvan does a great job of it, too.

[DominicGudgeon]

What I like about this particular debate is that it's one of the only ones I have come to not really knowing what to think. Both teams did a great job, but I think I've moved only slightly into the 'against' camp - that is, Islamism is to be feared more than any other outcome.

[PGHolmes]

No one can be an isolationist in a global economy.

[LafemmeSASE]

Interestingly I was fervently in the dictator camp until this debate. I appreciated the arguments of the better elected islamists. Ultimately they could not climb the huge hurdle of fear of islamists. 

[sylarlao]

how can I download this video clip...the voice is so quite that I could hardly hear it clearly.

[ElectricQualia]

we don't live in a democracy we live in an republican oligarchy...go figure

[antiherbs]

I don't have a problem with the format, aside from the absurdly ambiguous framing of the questions being debated over (this is, after all, a hallmark of competitive debates). What really gets under my skin is that the winning side is always the one that uses demagogy and appeals to pre-existing propaganda. I cannot for the life of me understand why Christian fundamentalists are treated with respect in this republic while anything that smacks of Islam abroad is demonized. It is disgraceful.

[markthenicholson]

You say global economy, but this has become a propagandized term which really means American colonization.

[markthenicholson]

Of course people should be able to have free discussion, just as viewers are entitled to comment on the arrogance of the conversation. Here we have Americans talking about how they can arrange the affairs of another country so as to best suit American interests, The talkers are drunk on the delusion of American exceptionalism and as such, arrogant.

[FxImhotep]

who is doing anything? its a discussion, and a interesting one at that. if you dont like open talk platforms then leave people alone that do.