Bloodbath in Egypt

[eddie]

Over 500 dead so far. Wasn't this the reason they threw out Morsi?

http://news.msn.com/world/after-hundreds-killed-egypt-faces-new-uncertainty

[Jimbuna]

This could well end up turning into a civil war.

[kranz]

When they put Mubarak into prison my grandfather said that some nations have to be kept on a very short leash. If not, everything falls.
Well, seems like he was right.

[CaptainHaplo]

So basically a whole bunch of Muslim Brotherhood members, supporters and associated family have been killed. A few others, but the vast majority being the above - folks who press for the repression of women, Shariah law and the execution of anyone who does not follow their Islamic creed.

My tears of sorrow are insufficient to even fill a thimble.

[Skybird]

From the moment on when the West helped the fundamentalists into power, none of the events, by their sequence , really came as a surprise. Not the attempt by the religious to abuse democracy to install a fundamentalist state, not the military stepping onto the scene, and not the pogroms the MB now runs against the Coptian Christians (once again).

There are worse scenarios for Egypt than a military ruling.

From an American, European and Israeli perspective, anything is better than a fundamentalist regime establishing its power in Egypt. I strongly recommend to learn - finally learn! - from the examples set by Turkey, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. We should only consider our options for influencing if the fundamentalists come back to power. Unfortunately, Europeans so far act exactly by the opposite, and Obama is manouvering.

What is needed again, is a relatively stable Egypt that keeps the religious in check. Like Mubarak did. I know the military is corrupted in itself to quite some degree. But that is the far lesser evil. Ideological and idealistic maximum demands will not help the situation. What is needed from a Western POV is Realpolitik and a healthy amount of remembering our own and Israel's interests.

Beyond that, this is an issue the Egyptians have to deal with and to solve - it is their conflict, so let them run the show. Let them do it, and let us stay out as long as not our vital own interests are affected. In solutions bringing the fundamentalists into power we shall not have the smallest interest.

[Oberon]

Anti-Muslim sentiments on the third post.

Stay classy GT. :salute:

Religion or no religion, the situation in Egypt is spiralling out of control, and with a vast portion of the worlds trade going through the Suez and the possibility of this creating a ripple effect as a sort of anti-Arab Spring, it's a situation that's got a lot of people quite concerned, and rightfully so. This is quite possibly the most important event to happen to Egypt since, well, at the very least the Yom Kippur war, but I'd go back even further to the Second World War, or beyond.

[BossMark]

Me thinks this going to turn into a full scale civil war, but hopes to god I am wrong.

[Skybird]

Oberon, the Arab Anti-Spring already started long before. Wherever, the Spring broke out, it ended with the fundamentalists claiming power and starting to erode the democratic principles that brought them there to establish a Shariah-based regime. They try it in Tunisia. In Libya. In Syria. In Egypt. Egypt is not the beginning of that Anti-Spring. It's just the latest spring-breaker turning into winter. Without the fundamentalists abusing their power over the past year, the military would not be on the streets today.

A fundamentalist regime is no expression of a functional democracy - it is the end of democracy. Fundamentalism, and democracy and humanism cannot go together. They are mutually exclusive.

[CaptainHaplo]

Anti-Muslim sentiments on the third post.

Oberon - there is a distinct difference between anti-Muslim sentiments and anti-extremist sentiments. As a Christian, I understand that not all Muslims are extremists. While their religion says they should be, not all are. Many are in fact, moderate. Just like I am a "moderate" Christian, since I don't believe we should go around stoning or otherwise executing gay people. There are extremists in every religion - but Islam has more than "its fair share". Just as I would speak out against a Christian extremist (like the morons who kill doctors because they do abortions) - I will speak out against Muslim extremists who would kill you and I because we were not followers of their religion.

Call that a lack of class if you like. People like that give up their status as humans when they feel a requirement to murder innocents - in my book at least. I'd say choosing to commit murder and terrorism in the name of getting laid by a bunch of virgins in the afterlife is a little "less classy".

[Tribesman]

Over 500 dead so far. Wasn't this the reason they threw out Morsi?

No, its the reason they threw out Mubarak.



Military dictatorships do what military dictatorships do, slaughtering local civilians and foreign journalists is just par for the course and is essential to "promote" democracy.

Or from a different angle.
Obama is simply protecting American jobs. If he didn't give the military dictatorship the US tax payers money the military dictatorship couldn't spend it on American made weapons.

The sad truth though is that the only people who are really going to benefit from this stupid chain of events is the fundamentalist nuts. Which is funny really since the military dictatorship is supposed to be getting rid of them not boosting them.

Without the fundamentalists abusing their power over the past year, the military would not be on the streets today.

Without the military dictatorship over the past 30 years abusing their power the fundy muppets wouldn't have done so well in any election.

[vienna]

I understand that not all Muslims are extremists. While their religion says they should be...



This may be a bit of a false understanding of Muslim teachings. Many Muslim holy scholars do not interpret the Koran as speciying a "required" waging of "holy war" in the military sense. This is a common misconception among many Christians and much held by some Christians who might also be called "extremists". One of the lessons I learned in Catholic shool (of all places) was the Muslim faith was not out ot "get Christians" and most Muslims did not support the extremist views. School was where I first heard of the phrase "People of the Book" in reference to those of other faiths whose beliefs came from the Old and New Testaments. Here is an article on the subject from the websit OnIslam.net (I like to research and understand the facts before I question someone else's beliefs):


http://www.onislam.net/english/reading-islam/research-studies/comparative-religion/454104-the-people-of-the-book-in-the-quran.html

I know some people, even after reading the article will still maintain their notions, but I thought it might help to at least clarify some of the gray areas...


<O>

[Skybird]

The old lie about Islam'S claimed tolerance for the people of the book. Oh my. Like it is a bad idea to ask the pope about the worth of the Catholic dogma and hoping for an objective answer, it also is a bad idea to ask Islamic scholars about whether Islam is good or bad. OF COURSE they say it is good and nice and friendly. Like, of course, the pope sees no wring in Catholicism.

Maybe better get your information from scientific researchers or any other, non-biased, more objective source.

Alos, check whether history is in conformity with your claims, or not. Some checking of numbers of who kills who more often in the present and in history, and how things are for minorities in Islamic countries in modern times and in past times, usually would make people rethink such claims before they voice them. But something tells me it would not concern you at all.

I do not repeat what I have preached so often in the past. I only cut it short and say this: people of the book are not to be wiped out, but are to be held in discrimination, as second class people, with limited rights, and under the ruling of their Musli masters. They are to pay protection money and shou,d be made aware all the time that they suffer these discmrination as Allah'S piunmsihement for them over the refusal to convert to Islam. Islam knows no tolerance and multicultural coexistence, only submission and subjugation, and its own undisputed rule.

People not of the book, are to convert, or are to be killed.

The Catholic church hates atheists, for they refuse to surrender to the churches control and claim for power and privileges, and it wants to win back terrain it has lost in past centuries to secularism and humanism. For them, even needing to share power with Islam is better, than to accept atheism and secularism. Better believe in Allah , than to not believe in theistic dogma at all. This explains why the church remains silent over the ongoing pogroms against Christian minorities in practically all Muslim world, and even whole genocides committed against Christian ethnicities in some places. Ethnic, religious and cultural minorities are systematically cleansed in all places where Islam settled down since slam reached those places. Since centuries. Since all beginning of Islam. Until today.

[vienna]

Believe me, many things concern me...

Your grammar and spelling (or lack thereof) are a concern... :03:

Rabidity and the spewing of rote responses is also a concern...

The old lie about "People of the Book"? Odd, I wonder if anyone has investgated the veracity of "do unto others", etc.? All religions can and have and will be accused of lies, duplicity, and outright ignorance of their basic tenets. Those of any faith who are knowledgeable of the tenets of their beliefs will follow them. Those who are not will pervert the ideals to satisfy the own base motives. Several years ago, I read a book on comparative religions (something you might want look into). The book listed various fundamental texts from various religions side by side and compared the similarities and differences. There was one portion that started with the New Testament quote "Do unto others...". Oddly enough, there was corresponding admonitions in virtually every other base text or teaching of virtually every other faith. It appear humanity would be better served if the 'believers' followed the texts rather than the 'teachers'...

If you wish to keep a 'scorecard' of 'kills', keep in mind Christianity predates Islam by some 600 years and the Jewish faith predates both by couple of millenia BCE. If you tally all the 'kills' before the CE, then add all the kills there after, the Muslim world has some catching up to do; and, recall, over 70 million died in the waging of WW1 & WW2, most of them 'good' Christians killing other 'good' Christians...

I do not condone any killing for religious reasons and I am not paticularly keen on killing for any other reasons, althogh I do believe there are times when there is no choice. Religion is a choice, at its base, and to use it to justify 'ungodly' acts is itself ungodly...

[eddie]

Well, the body count has passed 600 now. And the Brotherhood is calling for a million people to join a march on Friday.

How high will the body count go now?

[Bubblehead1980]

Normally I would not support a government taking such hardline action, but Morsi was deposed by the military at the will of the people.Now his die hard, brainwashed supporters are out in force.Sadly, they need to be kept down, hope it works out, don't need the islamists in control over there.Sadly, the US President is on the wrong side of course, supporting the brotherhood.

This is basically what it would be like in the US if obama was deposed, impeached etc., The left would get ignorant masses to cause havoc as the muslim brotherhood is doing.

[Tribesman]

Rabidity and the spewing of rote responses is also a concern...

You think? Lets see.

They are to pay protection money
Yes, same old rote crap from Skybird:doh:
Is this the same person who complains that he is "forced" to pay church tax in Germany?:yep:
So what is he really on about with this "protection money"....yet again.
Oh yeah I remember, people who don't pay the local church tax because they are not of that church pay another tax instead.
Simple isn't it.

Alos, check whether history is in conformity with your claims, or not. Some checking of numbers of who kills who more often in the present and in history, and how things are for minorities in Islamic countries in modern times and in past times, usually would make people rethink such claims before they voice them. But something tells me it would not concern you at all.

I could have sworn that when civilised Europe was doing its convert or die parties for the jews it was the isamic world that welcomed the refugees as people of the book.
But hey lets not let history or facts get in the way of rabid spewing:rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

Sadly, the US President is on the wrong side of course, supporting the brotherhood.

good point bubbles, he is supporting the brotherhood by backing the murdering military dictatorship:rotfl2:
I suppose he is refusing to call the coup a coup because he loves morsi so much .

Have you been asleep since November or something? did you follow events in Egypt at all?

[vienna]

"Forget it Jake, It's Bubbles..."



http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.c om/images/files/000/371/512/original/original.jpg



<O>

[Bubblehead1980]

good point bubbles, he is supporting the brotherhood by backing the murdering military dictatorship:rotfl2:
I suppose he is refusing to call the coup a coup because he loves morsi so much .

Have you been asleep since November or something? did you follow events in Egypt at all?

No, I have followed it.Morsi lied to get elected and was trying to force the country into an Islamic state, the people rose up and the military did their will.Now, those who wish to live in the dark ages are causing havoc because he is out.The military is responding in a manner I disagree with, they should be using live ammo.Water cannons, tear gas etc would work better, they will go too far I am sure. Like I said, I am not a fan of government's using such tactics but when you look at it, the will of the people is being subverted, trying to put an aspiring islamic dictator back in office and the president of the united states is supporting him.The president should never, under any circumstances support the muslim brothhood as their goals are completely opposite of what the US is supposed to be about.

I am a bit torn but must look at it in the sense of are we on the side of the people and liberty or radical islam?

[mookiemookie]

"Forget it Jake, It's Bubbles..."



http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.c om/images/files/000/371/512/original/original.jpg



<O>

:rotfl2: Post of the year material right here. I'm nominating this for Best of Subsim. :rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Stealhead]

This was my add for this page.People get upset about the NSA but think nothing of the level of tracking that private companies do.
This one of course must have hit on words used it the thread.

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/huh_zps35f1eed9.png~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/huh_zps35f1eed9.png.html)

[mookiemookie]

On a somewhat related note, the size of the market for Sharia-compliant bonds is amazing. I guess all that oil money needs to be invested somewhere. They're called Sukuk. In Islam, paying interest is not allowed. So what they do is that the issuer sells the "bond" to the investor, and the investor then rents it back to the issuer for a fee. That way the issuer is paying rent, not interest.

Financial geekery over.

[Stealhead]

So that is how they will take over the world.:03:

Of course Islam is the most rapidly growing religion in the world so it might be a good idea just to get along.It should not be too difficult seeing 99% are not wishing you any harm.

According to Wikipedia $1.3 trillion in assets are managed according to Islamic principles.

[Oberon]

I probably jumped on you a little too harshly there Haplo, and for that I apologise. The Muslim Brotherhood are no saints, that's for certain, but the situation in Egypt is a lot more complicated than most people realise.
Put yourself in the shoes of an average Islamist mother, not an extremist, nor had you raised your children as extremists, nor had they been taught as extremists. They were as religious as your average devout Christian, and to them the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in a fully democratic election was a good thing, the good rules of Islam would be enforce on a godless country. It would be like someone enforcing the rules of Christianity on a western nation, like America or Britain, the religious would love it, and the non-religious would be annoyed.
Now, getting back to this mother, her son decides that go and join a protest that all his mates are going to, she gets his packed lunch (halal of course :haha:) and off he goes. Then the next morning she gets a report from a friend at the mosque that her son and all his friends have been gunned down by the military. How exactly do you think she would feel?
Now multiply that by roughly five hundred and that's what's going on in Egypt right now.
Now, I don't buy this 'All Muslims are terrorists' rubbish, and I doubt you do too, it's no more truthful than the last centuries mantras of 'All communists are evil' and 'all Jews are evil', it's the same old rubbish just with a different face. Sure, there are extremists, just as you get in any religion, Christianity has not been short of them over the centuries, nor has Hinduism, heck even Buddhism has extremists, although they tend to self-harm rather than take it out on other people.
The problem right now is that Morsi, love him or hate him, was elected by the popular vote, admittedly the vote was between him or a minister of Mubaraks, so it was a bit devil and the deep blue sea, but that was not down to Morsis fault nor Mubaraks, the protestors just didn't organise themselves quick enough to create a party to run in the election and so were easily defeated in the run-offs by the much more organised Muslim Brotherhood. So essentially, this is a bit like Al Gore and the US military deposing George W Bush because of the Florida screw up. It's not how the democratic system is supposed to work.
Now, Obama, is in a tough spot, and while the simple minds like Bubbles automatically assume that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he really is not. If this was the case then that multi-million dollar payout to the Egyptian military would not still be happening. Rest assured Obama doesn't want the Brotherhood in power any more than most Western leaders do. However, if he were to come out and say this, then Russia and China would fall off their chairs laughing and give Assad all the guns he could manage to defeat both the Syrian rebels and probably invade Israel. This is realpolitik, a fine sabre dance between what you want to say, and what you have to say. Russia and China will probably pressure the US to create an arms embargo on Egypt, not because they want the Muslim Brotherhood in power, neither country are fond of Muslims, but because it's a weak point for the Americans and Russia and China love to poke at American weak points.
Furthermore, and this is the real problem, and the main reason why Western leaders are taking this a lot more seriously than Syria.
The Suez Canal.
At least fifty ships pass through that canal every day, it is one of the major oil routes from the Middle East to the West, and a major route for supplies to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations in the Gulf. You shut down the Canal, you put at least a weeks worth of extra travel on most journeys to Europe and America from the Middle East. The price of oil jumps up, and so does the price of pretty much anything that goes through the Suez. It's a bit like Panama having a civil war, there is no guarantee that it will not affect the Canal. So far in Egypt we have been lucky, most of the resorts and the Canal have stayed open, but the harder the military push, the more the Brotherhood are going to push back, and the West has to be very careful not to outright pick sides, because a couple of suicide boats in the Suez could really screw up the Wests day.

Personally I think that the people who cheered the military in Tahrir Square, who cheered when Morsi was overthrown are going to wake up one morning and suddenly realise that they've sleepwalked straight back into Mubaraks era without even realising it, and then we'll start the cycle all over again. C'est la vie.

[Bubblehead1980]

I probably jumped on you a little too harshly there Haplo, and for that I apologise. The Muslim Brotherhood are no saints, that's for certain, but the situation in Egypt is a lot more complicated than most people realise.
Put yourself in the shoes of an average Islamist mother, not an extremist, nor had you raised your children as extremists, nor had they been taught as extremists. They were as religious as your average devout Christian, and to them the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in a fully democratic election was a good thing, the good rules of Islam would be enforce on a godless country. It would be like someone enforcing the rules of Christianity on a western nation, like America or Britain, the religious would love it, and the non-religious would be annoyed.
Now, getting back to this mother, her son decides that go and join a protest that all his mates are going to, she gets his packed lunch (halal of course :haha:) and off he goes. Then the next morning she gets a report from a friend at the mosque that her son and all his friends have been gunned down by the military. How exactly do you think she would feel?
Now multiply that by roughly five hundred and that's what's going on in Egypt right now.
Now, I don't buy this 'All Muslims are terrorists' rubbish, and I doubt you do too, it's no more truthful than the last centuries mantras of 'All communists are evil' and 'all Jews are evil', it's the same old rubbish just with a different face. Sure, there are extremists, just as you get in any religion, Christianity has not been short of them over the centuries, nor has Hinduism, heck even Buddhism has extremists, although they tend to self-harm rather than take it out on other people.
The problem right now is that Morsi, love him or hate him, was elected by the popular vote, admittedly the vote was between him or a minister of Mubaraks, so it was a bit devil and the deep blue sea, but that was not down to Morsis fault nor Mubaraks, the protestors just didn't organise themselves quick enough to create a party to run in the election and so were easily defeated in the run-offs by the much more organised Muslim Brotherhood. So essentially, this is a bit like Al Gore and the US military deposing George W Bush because of the Florida screw up. It's not how the democratic system is supposed to work.
Now, Obama, is in a tough spot, and while the simple minds like Bubbles automatically assume that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he really is not. If this was the case then that multi-million dollar payout to the Egyptian military would not still be happening. Rest assured Obama doesn't want the Brotherhood in power any more than most Western leaders do. However, if he were to come out and say this, then Russia and China would fall off their chairs laughing and give Assad all the guns he could manage to defeat both the Syrian rebels and probably invade Israel. This is realpolitik, a fine sabre dance between what you want to say, and what you have to say. Russia and China will probably pressure the US to create an arms embargo on Egypt, not because they want the Muslim Brotherhood in power, neither country are fond of Muslims, but because it's a weak point for the Americans and Russia and China love to poke at American weak points.
Furthermore, and this is the real problem, and the main reason why Western leaders are taking this a lot more seriously than Syria.
The Suez Canal.
At least fifty ships pass through that canal every day, it is one of the major oil routes from the Middle East to the West, and a major route for supplies to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations in the Gulf. You shut down the Canal, you put at least a weeks worth of extra travel on most journeys to Europe and America from the Middle East. The price of oil jumps up, and so does the price of pretty much anything that goes through the Suez. It's a bit like Panama having a civil war, there is no guarantee that it will not affect the Canal. So far in Egypt we have been lucky, most of the resorts and the Canal have stayed open, but the harder the military push, the more the Brotherhood are going to push back, and the West has to be very careful not to outright pick sides, because a couple of suicide boats in the Suez could really screw up the Wests day.

Personally I think that the people who cheered the military in Tahrir Square, who cheered when Morsi was overthrown are going to wake up one morning and suddenly realise that they've sleepwalked straight back into Mubaraks era without even realising it, and then we'll start the cycle all over again. C'est la vie.

Simple mind? yea okay. I considered that obama does not really support the brotherhood and was trying to be careful but that is not it, he could simply lay low, he comes out in support of morsi, he was against the coup, he supports the muslim brotherhood, plain and simple.

I really don't care about the average islamist mother's view or her idiot son who was our protesting to keep their nation in the dark ages.They did elect Morsi but majority soon realized he was a mistake and ousted him before he dragged them back to the dark ages as islam tends to do.That is the problem, the muslim world is ignorant, living in the dark ages.Extreme christians are just about as bad in some regards. The hooligans trying to keep Egypt in the dark ages are getting shot by the interim government.This where I am torn, I hate to see any government doing such a thing, it goes against my core beliefs but in this case, it may be justified since the muslim brotherhood is a threat.

The 2000 election example is bunk, Bush won that election, the myther long perpetrated that it was stolen just angers me.Bush won Florida's electoral votes, the Dems tried to steal it and it backfired when it ended up in front of SCOTUS, that is what happens.Should someone have tried to depose Bush they would have had no justification as Bush won the election.Morsi was governing as an islamist but from what I read, that is not what he ran as.Kind of like a hardcore left winger(current president) trying to run as a moderate, a pragmatist etc then taking a hard turn left.The people had buyers regret and before he damaged their nation beyond repair, dragging them back into dark ages, they ousted the SOB via the military.

This brings up a sad truth also, that part of the world simply is not ready for liberty, they need a strong force to keep them in line.Mubarak style leaderships in Egypt would be great again, for us. Until their culture evolves(wont in our life time) they just will not be ready for freedom, sad to say.

[CaptainHaplo]

I probably jumped on you a little too harshly there Haplo, and for that I apologise.

We are good, mate. Thanks for that.

Personally I think that the people who cheered the military in Tahrir Square, who cheered when Morsi was overthrown are going to wake up one morning and suddenly realise that they've sleepwalked straight back into Mubaraks era without even realising it, and then we'll start the cycle all over again. C'est la vie.

I totally get where your coming from. The problem here is this - while a few thousand are protesting for the MB - there were MILLIONS in the streets protesting Morsi. While the MB was elected "democratically" - they also were democratically deposed - the military acted on the demands of the majority of Egyptian people. A few thousands vs a few millions. No contest - the bloodshed would be MUCH worse that it is right now had the military NOT stepped in. Seeing that the MB is even now swearing they are "peaceful" even as they toss occupied police vehicles off bridges, burn down occupied buildings (to say nothing of burning down places of worship of other religions), do you really think they would have not murdered the people in the street to keep power? I assure you, the MB would not blink at the death of 10,000 - much less the death of 5 or 6 hundred. Their history both worldwide and in Egypt has proven that they care not one whit for the life of others who stand in their way.

Now your right - the US is in a bit of a pickle. The problem is - the pickle could have been avoided - but instead of avoiding it, our foreign policy (or the lack of one) has caused us to be between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Your astute observation about the Suez Canal is dead on - most people miss that.

Regarding the Egyptian people returning to a Mubarak type regime, the vast majority may not want that - but it is apparent that they definitely don't want a Morsi type regime either.

So with Egypt needing an economic boom - how soon do you think it will be before they start charging exorbitant rates for Suez passage?

It is also important to for those of us in more "westernized" countries, whether in Western Europe or in North America - to remember that democracy doesn't work in the middle east the way it does in the West. To expect a country who has its first legitimate election, to think its people will be ok with a government going an entirely opposite way than the people want - its no surprise they took to the street by the millions.

If Washington had 5 million protesters in it day after day calling for new elections and the administration to get booted, it would cause a stir. If it were a comparable portion as to what was seen in Egypt, you would be looking at 20 million people in Washington. And guess what - were that to happen you might just see new elections in a hurry here too.

[Oberon]

Oh, I agree, the Brotherhood is not a very popular party, for a multitude of reasons, quite a few of them having nothing to do with religion. It was, quite frankly, only a matter of time before something gave way, because they didn't have the support of the military or the police force, so naturally crime and disorder flourished, the people suffered, and those pushing the Islamic agenda just further served to put the MB in the dustbin.
The problem I have is people saying that the military was legitimate in removing Morsi, like somehow it's different because Morsi was an Islamist, it was a coup, simple as. Again, not directed at you Haplo, just some people that see things in the usual 'us vs them' mindset that has ruled the world since 9/11 much to the detriment of its inhabitants.
It's a tricky situation, no matter which way you go at it, the people of Egypt are going to be the ones that lose out the most.
In regards to Obama and the US foreign policy, I struggle to find how they could have done things much differently, to be honest I think that America has been struggling to understand the Middle Eastern mindset for decades and so things like the Arab Spring and the military coup catch them by surprise, but no matter what Obama does, he's going to be slated for it, at least taking the middle road as he is at the moment, he's not siding directly with either side but at the same time he's not hanging the military out to dry. With Syria looming in the background and Russia and China ever ready to exploit a US mis-step, it's a case of measure thrice cut once.

[Tribesman]

No, I have followed it.Morsi lied to get elected and was trying to force the country into an Islamic state, the people rose up and the military did their will.
OK Bubbles lets see if you are not lying.
Two simple questions.
Which two countries(very fundy Islamic states) were the main backers of the protest groups?
How did the military claim they had miraculously addressed the complaints from the electricity protests?

Leaves you in a bit of a tricky spot doesn't it, if you answer correctly it proves you are lying about what you claim has been going on, if you can't answer it proves you are lying about following events in Egypt:yep:

[Schroeder]

Is this the same person who complains that he is "forced" to pay church tax in Germany?:yep:
So what is he really on about with this "protection money"....yet again.
Oh yeah I remember, people who don't pay the local church tax because they are not of that church pay another tax instead.

Actually you don't pay church taxes if you're not a member of a church. I've never paid church taxes and I also can't remember to have paid a substitute tax instead.:hmm2:

[Skybird]

Actually you don't pay church taxes if you're not a member of a church. I've never paid church taxes and I also can't remember to have paid a substitute tax instead.:hmm2:
But you do. As a mean value, around 90% of the costs for new hospitals and social institutions operated under administration of the church, often under church parallel law, and being given into legal property possession of the church, are being constructed and maintained by public funding, only around 10% are payed by the church.

Those 90% are the funds to which you contribute by your taxes. You pay the church, whether your like it or not, whether you want it or not. As a member, you just pay more.

[Skybird]

On Egypt and the damn Brotherhood, this: all what is to be said about these blood-happy bastards.

LINK: Crush the Muslim Brotherhood (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/crush-the-muslim-brotherhood/print/#comments_controls)


Like all terrorist organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood has only one commodity to trade in. Blood.

In the war of ideas for the future of Egypt, the Brotherhood had nothing to offer but the blood of its followers and victims. It has no new ideas. It has no record of accomplishments. It has no vision for the future except the same old corruption and authoritarianism cloaked in a deceptive Islamist garb.

The outcome of any interaction with the Brotherhood could have been predicted from its motto; “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

In the streets of Egyptian cities, Muslim Brotherhood activists achieved their highest hope. They died in their Jihad against the liberal opposition and the military, fighting against human rights for women and Christians, against multi-party rule, freedom of speech, museums, libraries and the future in the way that the armies of Allah have died for over a thousand years.

Some died trying to kill Egyptian soldiers and police officers. Others were killed by their own people in order to maximize the death toll and spread shock and horror through the international community.

Like their Hamas outlet in Gaza, like their Syrian brigades who have wrecked entire cities and filled them with corpses, and like Al Qaeda, whose leaders have always been Muslim Brotherhood members; the Brotherhood does not care whose blood it spills.

When your highest hope is dying for Allah, then everything else is a detail. The Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders, men like Morsi and Khairat el-Shater, are far less eager to die for Allah. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s mad genocidal preacher, is still hiding out in Qatar and spewing calls for violence from under the skirts of the equally cowardly Qatari Emir, who finances the Brotherhood’s wave of death and terror in the region while living it up in his palaces.

In his final speech, Morsi boasted of his willingness to sacrifice his blood for power. The Brotherhood’s preacher of hate, Qaradawi, urged Jihadists from around the world to come and be martyred in Egypt.

For the wealthy titans of the Brotherhood, their followers are pawns to be disposed of, human shields for their political ambitions. The Muslim Brotherhood spent their blood generously during the clashes with Egyptian police the same way that Hamas and Hezbollah spill the blood of their own people.

What it bought with their blood is the outrage of the world. Terrorist organizations are one-trick ponies. They unleash horrifying violence, blame it on the brutality of the authorities and wait for the world to step in and apply pressure on whatever government they are trying to overthrow.

The Brotherhood’s leaders knew that. Their speeches amping up their followers for a deadly struggle created the tension that exploded into brutal violence.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders followed the oldest traditions of Islam by offering their followers paradise and atonement in exchange for unleashing their darkest passions. That the unleashing should have ended in hundreds of deaths is not at all unprecedented in the many wars and conflicts of Islam.

What any normal person would consider a massacre, the Muslim Brotherhood considers an opportunity.

The Muslim Brotherhood used the blood of its followers as currency to buy international outrage that will be used to pressure Egypt into releasing Brotherhood leaders like Morsi and and Khairat el-Shater. It wanted the clashes to be as ugly and bloody as possible. It wanted to outrage the world because it knew that was the speediest way of getting its leaders out of their prison cells and back into power.

These murderous tactics would be useless if the United States and Europe weren’t full of useful idiots and fellow travelers, in and out of the media, gasping at the carnage and demanding an immediate halt to the violence. There is only one way to halt the violence and that is to crush the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt has only had peace by suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood. It will only have peace when the Muslim Brotherhood is suppressed once again. The last two years have shown that there can be no peace with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In or out of power, the Brotherhood is murderous, intolerant and ruthlessly bent on absolute power.

Responding to the carnage with new calls for an end to foreign aid is an explicit form of collaboration in the Muslim Brotherhood’s atrocities and the surest way to ensure that they will be repeated. Egypt may deserve to lose its foreign aid, but issuing such calls now is handing a victory to the world’s worst terrorist organization and giving it every incentive to up the body count next time around.

The calls for Brotherhood participation in an Egyptian government are senseless insanity. Is there room for a movement that seeks nothing but death in the ranks of any government? Should murderous madness on such a scale really be the currency that purchases power? Should the burners of churches and the torturers of peaceful protesters be rewarded with power a second time?

Western governments fear escalation in Egypt. And that fear is the secret weapon of every terrorist group. The terrorist groups always escalate, spending their currency of blood cheaply to break the will of their enemies. The only way to break that cycle is to out-escalate them by showing that their currency of blood is worthless because the people and governments they are terrorizing will not be bent under its terrible weight.

Wars aren’t won through de-escalation, but through escalation. America lost in Afghanistan because it wasn’t willing to fight harder and bloodier than the Taliban. The Egyptian government has shown that it is willing to match the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthlessness without backing down.

To reward the courage of the Egyptian soldiers and police who fought the Muslim Brotherhood in the streets by forcing their government to stand down and surrender to the terrorists who nearly turned Egypt into a second Iran is an unmitigated crime. It is a crime whose consequences will not only be felt by the women and Christians of Egypt, but by all of us.


110% on target.

[Tribesman]

Actually you don't pay church taxes if you're not a member of a church. I've never paid church taxes and I also can't remember to have paid a substitute tax instead.:hmm2:
To clarify.
That is why forced was written as "forced" as his claim is not true.
The substitute tax is the "protection money" Sky talks of in those other countries not yours, which also happens to be another false claim he makes.

Then again anyone who cites stuff from Horowitz publications is bound to be making piles of false claims ain't they, after all it was a major source of material for that nut Breivik whose manifesto Sky agreed with.

[soopaman2]

Didn't the US media paint this revolution as good?

What happened?

Our intel agencies are so smart! Just ask the World trade Center and USS cole.


damn we know everything!

High five! (* deafening silence*)

[Oberon]

All politics and religion aside, I've found one of the best sources of information in the middle of this mess right now is Jeremy Bowen, he has a twitter account, and even if you don't have a twitter account, it's worth keeping an eye on his, he tweets pictures and such from it, and he gets in as close as he can to what's going on and equally, does his best not to get drawn to either side. In my opinion, he's one of the BBCs best journalists.

https://twitter.com/BowenBBC

Here's a compliation of his tweets from yesterday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23734354

It's good to see him back on the streets of Cairo after he received shotgun wounds from the Egyptian military last month and had to fly back to the UK for treatment.

[Skybird]

They are mulling a new ban on the MB.

This - and ruthlessly cracking down on them - that are the only realistic options. Egypt needs stability, for generating economic recovering and financial income from tourism. That cannot be gotten with the MB. For tourists it does not matter what government form there is: they want security. For investors it does not matter what government form there is: they want trustworthiness of treaties, and stability. The importance of democracy (and radicals using it to establish tyranny) is once again hopelessly overestimated in case of Egypt. What it needs is a government strong enough and determined enough to keep the MB in chains. Whether the militarey is strong enough, I do not know. But it certainly seems to be determined. And it is certainly one of the better militaries in the region.

Germany's Westerwelle and Merkel nevertheless have stopped all aid and support, refusing to see the priorities and insisting on the trouble makers being given share of the power again so that they can mess it up for all others even more again. Retards. Denial of reality from some point on is a serious psychopathologic symptom.

[Oberon]

Whilst it is a shame to be in a position to do so, I do agree with you Skybird. Particularly since the military and police have shown absolutely no interest in working with the MB, so the only way Egypt is going to have stability is underneath a military dictatorship, ala Mubarak, which is what the military is setting up, or at the very least it's smashing the MB so hard that when elections come, it'll be rather likely that the candidate the military wants will win.

The average Egyptian is on the militarys side at the moment, I wonder how long that will last... :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

I thought this was a fairly well written article by Bowen a little earlier:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23724269

[Skybird]

Whilst it is a shame to be in a position to do so, I do agree with you Skybird. Particularly since the military and police have shown absolutely no interest in working with the MB,
What...? I remember very clearly that the MB was given week after week of delays and chances in a bid for making them rethink concessions and negotiate their participation in a future government. The MB refused all and everything, and practiced total maximum opposition and denial.

It is in no way the fault of the security that the situation turned into what it is. When the conflict openly broke out, however, the military indeed acted with determination. In the bigger cities, they seem to have the support of a majority of citizens. In rural places however I expect the MB to have domination in public opinion.

Also, those "secular" Egyptians opposing the MB now, have to quite some degree voted for this kraken just a bit over one year ago, and a very huge majority of Egyptians just two years ago was - once again - found to be in support of Sharia playing the decisive role in forming a future Egyptian state system. Some years ago I gave a number on that support in some thread, 80-90% being for a Sharia based constitution and Egypt becoming an Islamic republic. I doubt that this numbers has decreased too much. A bit maybe under the impression of Morsi's year and recent events, but not too much. Last time I was in Egypt must have been 2004 I think. Back then the youth gave the strong impression of what I also saw before in Iran: that it wanted some more liberties regarding media, press, less pressure from the secret police - but nevertheless no democracy by American example, but an Islamic republic nevertheless, based on Sharia. I wanr against assessing the Egyptian opinion by the only example or people in Cairo. That is as representative only as for example the mood in Instanbul is for the Anatolian coreland - both are lightyears apart. Part of the misconception of Turkey stems from judging it only by Instanbul, some other big cities, and the tourist resort. The majoirty of Turks do not live in these places... Same for Egypt. Egypt is more than just Cairo and Alexandria and some isolated tourist ressorts.

Boy, its so long time ago. :huh:

[Platapus]

Didn't the US media paint this revolution as good?

What happened?

Our intel agencies are so smart! Just ask the World trade Center and USS cole.



Just because a politician makes statement, one can not assume that the IC is in support of it. All politicans are required to do is take what the IC produces under consideration. No politician is ever required to base their decisions on Intel... and quite often don't.

[Oberon]

What...? I remember very clearly that the MB was given week after week of delays and chances in a bid for making them rethink concessions and negotiate their participation in a future government. The MB refused all and everything, and practiced total maximum opposition and denial.

It is in no way the fault of the security that the situation turned into what it is. When the conflict openly broke out, however, the military indeed acted with determination. In the bigger cities, they seem to have the support of a majority of citizens. In rural places however I expect the MB to have domination in public opinion.

Also, those "secular" Egyptians opposing the MB now, have to quite some degree voted for this kraken just a bit over one year ago, and a very huge majority of Egyptians just two years ago was - once again - found to be in support of Sharia playing the decisive role in forming a future Egyptian state system. Some years ago I gave a number on that support in some thread, 80-90% being for a Sharia based constitution and Egypt becoming an Islamic republic. I doubt that this numbers has decreased too much. A bit maybe under the impression of Morsi's year and recent events, but not too much. Last time I was in Egypt must have been 2004 I think. Back then the youth gave the strong impression of what I also saw before in Iran: that it wanted some more liberties regarding media, press, less pressure from the secret police - but nevertheless no democracy by American example, but an Islamic republic nevertheless, based on Sharia. I wanr against assessing the Egyptian opinion by the only example or people in Cairo. That is as representative only as for example the mood in Instanbul is for the Anatolian coreland - both are lightyears apart. Part of the misconception of Turkey stems from judging it only by Instanbul, some other big cities, and the tourist resort. The majoirty of Turks do not live in these places... Same for Egypt. Egypt is more than just Cairo and Alexandria and some isolated tourist ressorts.

Boy, its so long time ago. :huh:

Oh, no no, I wasn't putting this solely on the military or security, although a cynical mind could concoct a scenario in which both entities deliberately did not integrate with the MB in order to undermine it, but as they say, it takes two to tango. Morsi had an agenda, an Islamist agenda, and he made the n00b mistake of doing it all too quickly and playing his hand far too early.
I also agree that Egyptians want a more liberal Sharia republic, with many of the freedoms that the west enjoys in regards to media and the like, but the laws of Sharia. Obviously how well the two mix together is up for a long and exhaustive debate at another time but certainly the more secular Egyptians are the vocal minority, but they have the support (at this time) of the military and security forces, and as Mao once said 'Political power grows from the barrel of a gun'. Now obviously the military wants a Mubarak style situation back, so they can keep getting their American money and technology, and keep their foot in the door of the future of Egypt, perhaps they have looked across at Iran and the 'Revolutionary Guard' and seen how political Islam gets the military under control and wants no part of that. So obviously they are going to kill every single Muslim Brotherhood member they can find, which is going to be a very bloody process as the more they kill MB members the more the Brotherhood gets support, both from inside Egypt and from outside Egypt. Meanwhile the people who are supporting the military are going to start getting cold feet, and we'll be back to Tahrir Square again for the third overthrow.

[Tribesman]

Whilst it is a shame to be in a position to do so, I do agree with you Skybird.
Think about it oberon, that is exactly what spurred the growth of the MB last time, doing the same again will only bring the same results.

The average Egyptian is on the militarys side at the moment, I wonder how long that will last...
Its not lasting at all, they are jumping ship in droves.
Not surprising really as the military is giving them exactly what they rebelled against in the first place.

Think about it, you have the same bodies running the show again, the original rebellion was against the institutionalised corruption of those bodies, police and army brutality, indefinite detention without trial, government censorship, dodgy secret police having a free for all with no accountability, suspension of constitutional rights.
All those are back again, it can only go one way and the fundamentalist nuts are the only ones who will benefit in the long term.
History is full of examples where severe military clampdowns on groups with marginal or middling popularity simply propels support for those groups through the roof




It is in no way the fault of the security that the situation turned into what it is.
Unbelievable:doh:
If the army overthrows a government and installs martial law it is wholly responsible for the inevitable results.
A military dictatorship is a military dictatorship, it does what it does and bears full responsibility for all that it does

In the bigger cities, they seem to have the support of a majority of citizens. In rural places however I expect the MB to have domination in public opinion.

:har::har::har::har:
In the rural places they go for al-nour, they hand out money to the peasants

[Skybird]

Oh, no no, I wasn't putting this solely on the military or security, although a cynical mind could concoct a scenario in which both entities deliberately did not integrate with the MB in order to undermine it, but as they say, it takes two to tango. Morsi had an agenda, an Islamist agenda, and he made the n00b mistake of doing it all too quickly and playing his hand far too early.

.

A misunderstanding only, then.

[Tribesman]

Down the rabbit hole.
The dictatorship run State media are claiming the MB are part of a US/UK/Israeli terrorist plot to destabilise the country.
The Saudi backed pro coup protesters are saying the dictatorship should respond to Americas "threats" by rejecting the US military aid and ripping up the peace treaty.

I wonder if any of the coup supporters in the west will ever stop and think about what exactly it is they are supporting:nope:

[Skybird]

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/aegyptens-muslimbrueder-die-masken-sind-gefallen-12536017.html

A translated German reprint of an Egyptian essay by an Egyptian commentator, Chalid al-Chamissi. About how the mask has been ripped off the face of the MB, and the Egyptian people's anger about the idiotic stupidity and impertinent ignorrance of Europeans and Americans wanting to bring the MB into government again.

[Tribesman]

A translated German reprint of an Egyptian essay by an Egyptian commentator, Chalid al-Chamissi. About how the mask has been ripped off the face of the MB, and the Egyptian people's anger about the idiotic stupidity and impertinent ignorrance of Europeans and Americans wanting to bring the MB into government again.
So that's Khaled al-khamissi. That would be the writer who said Obama supports the MB because they are conservative and the Saudis support them because they are Islamists.
I wonder why Obama supported the coup and Saudi funded the anti Morsi protests then?

Still I suppose its better than the dictatorships line of crap they are putting to the Egyptian people where the Muslim brotherhood is really a global Jewish conspiracy:rotfl2:

[Packlife]

Personally I never really saw it as a classic military coup, which if I understand it right is a small group of a military that want to seize control of the power for them selves. This was the more a big majority of the Egyptian people who were fed up of watchin Morsi drive Egypt into destruction. 1 person described it as they only had working utilities for a few hours a day, the economy was the worse it had ever been, thats just a few examples. When people are saying your worse the Mubarak you know you suck at being the leader. The MB have been trying for 80 years to gain power/control an they are not going to just say ok you win we lose. But the "security forces" have kinda went off the deep end with their crack downs, if people want to sit in their little tent towns let them. But if they start killing an bad stuff like that then yeah do something about it. A lot of people were worried about the radical branch of the MB the jihadi MB members who have no problem going full blow Iraq insurgency. The funniest thing was people were saying "Oh but Morsi was democratically voted in" yeah an Hitler was voted in too, these guys had their shot at doing the right thing. An instead they started locking up political opponents an ramming a phony constitution through that nobody liked but them. I guess in the end the people an the military had 2 choices sit back an watch your country fall apart or do something about it.

[Tribesman]

Packlife. Could you tell me how the dictatorship said it instantly "solved" the utilities problem people were protesting about?
Then could you explain that problem solving in a way that has any scrap of credibility?
When you are unable to explain the problem solving can you give any thoughts on how to create the problem in the first place?

[Wolferz]

It's Bush's fault.:haha:


/grabs hat and runs.

[Skybird]

Personally I never really saw it as a classic military coup, which if I understand it right is a small group of a military that want to seize control of the power for them selves. This was the more a big majority of the Egyptian people who were fed up of watchin Morsi drive Egypt into destruction. 1 person described it as they only had working utilities for a few hours a day, the economy was the worse it had ever been, thats just a few examples. When people are saying your worse the Mubarak you know you suck at being the leader. The MB have been trying for 80 years to gain power/control an they are not going to just say ok you win we lose. But the "security forces" have kinda went off the deep end with their crack downs, if people want to sit in their little tent towns let them. But if they start killing an bad stuff like that then yeah do something about it. A lot of people were worried about the radical branch of the MB the jihadi MB members who have no problem going full blow Iraq insurgency. The funniest thing was people were saying "Oh but Morsi was democratically voted in" yeah an Hitler was voted in too, these guys had their shot at doing the right thing. An instead they started locking up political opponents an ramming a phony constitution through that nobody liked but them. I guess in the end the people an the military had 2 choices sit back an watch your country fall apart or do something about it.

The MB has attacked and burnt down over 50 Christian churches and had its snipers shooting without aim into groups of residents to create a higher body count so that the West yells louder. They tortured prisoners to death and murdered others. You could not let them sit in their tents and say "let them". These are thugs that know that the West is assisting them the more the higher the body count becomes, and so they do their share to push it as high as they can. Such scum you do not want to share governmental power no matter whether it got there by elections or otherwise - such scum you want under tightest possible control.

A coup it is when the military revolts against a government supported by the majority of people. When it rises against a government that the majority of people wants to get rid of, when it rises after the people explicitly demanded it to do so and to help the people, then it is not so much a coup, but a revolt or revolution. The MB has had over one year to prove itself - and like I expected, it just managed to let fall its mask, delivered nothing but its stoneage barbarism and conspiracy with Islamic terrorism, and it showed that it is incompetent to run the administrational challenges of everyday government. Medieval tyranny - that is what is to come from the MB, nothing else. Instead of improving Egypts status and the situation of its people, the MB cared more to get better financed by certain Gulf states to boost jihad, and it widened cooperation with Palestinian terror groups. That may be the reason why today I read in the newspaper Saudi Arabia has encouraged Egypt'S military to play hard on the MB, by assuring them that if Egypt would be punished by the stupid Westerners by having financial aid cut or suspended, Saudi Arabia would fully compensate Egypt for the financial losses.

Not that the US would cancel its military aid, Egypt is too important for them, with the Suez channel being just one factor.

Also, it would help to have a basic understanding of the historical record and development and role-defining of the Egyptian military. It is a bit more subtle than just painting black-white stereotypes here. Egyptians are apparently aware of that, and the current revival of Nasser may be an indication for that. That Nasser is becoming that popular again cannot be calming or comforting from a Western POV - it should be a warning on how alienated Egyptians already are by Western visions of what Egyptians should do. I recommend we leave that decision to those who know better than us what they want - the Egyptians themselves.

The situation right now in no way compares to the Algerian drama in the first half of the nineties. We were in Algeria short after the historical climax of the turmoils there, it was the most dangerous place I ever have been, for the situation was totally unpredictable and could not be assessed, for half a dozen factions, sides and intel agencies were stabbing and shooting at just everybody else. Compared to the death tolls they had in Algeria, the massacres, the villages being wiped out, the pogroms, the events in Egypt are nothing, absolutely nothing. The talking about an Egyptian civil war is clueless hysteria so far that the MB propagates to help its cause, the West propagates to gets its will of a formally democratic but in reality terrorist and deeply racist regime, and the occasional observer watching it while sitting on the fence most likely does not know what he is talking about.

When the situation approaches what they have had in Algerian bloodshed and chaos in the early 90s - then I start thinking about a terminology including terms like "civil war".

Allah is our objective, the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations. - Motto of the MB. Still wanna shake hands with them? Handfeeding a shark sounds like a good idea to you, eh?

[Takeda Shingen]

It's Bush's fault.:haha:


/grabs hat and runs.

Well it is Bush's fault, as well as the fault of every president going back to Carter. We have had this foolish notion that transplanting our ideal of western liberal democracy to the region was going to not only ensure peace, but ensure that the type of leaders that we would like to deal with will rise to the top. That simply hasn't been the case, but we continue to put our hands in the fire thinking that our flesh will outlast the flames.

[Tribesman]

A coup it is when the military revolts against a government supported by the majority of people. When it rises against a government that the majority of people wants to get rid of, when it rises after the people explicitly demanded it to do so and to help the people, then it is not so much a coup, but a revolt or revolution.
A coup is a coup, you cannot simply make up your own definition to fit your agenda.
Even making up your own definition you fail badly.
The major groups which were demanding a change of government are now protesting against the dictatorship. Something about them already having had a revolution to get rid of the military dictatorship:yep:

That may be the reason why today I read in the newspaper Saudi Arabia has encouraged Egypt'S military to play hard on the MB, by assuring them that if Egypt would be punished by the stupid Westerners by having financial aid cut or suspended, Saudi Arabia would fully compensate Egypt for the financial losses.

You only read that today??????
Is this them crazy wahabis you are always warning people are the "true" muslims which are the real danger?
And now you are backing them and their proxies in the dictatorship.:har:
I suppose you had to shut your eyes very tight to avoid your wonderful little dictatorship claiming the MB are a Jewish conspiracy.

I recommend we leave that decision to those who know better than us what they want - the Egyptians themselves.

Make your mind up, you are supporting the fundamentalists from the Gulf and what they want in Egypt:doh:

[Skybird]

The chief of the MB, Mohammad Badie, has been arrested in Cairo.

[TLAM Strike]

Personally I never really saw it as a classic military coup, which if I understand it right is a small group of a military that want to seize control of the power for them selves. The term for this is a Guardian Group, which is when someone, ex the military takes over to protect the country from the government. In some nations this is actually one of the assumed duties of the military.


The funniest thing was people were saying "Oh but Morsi was democratically voted in" yeah an Hitler was voted in too, these guys had their shot at doing the right thing. Why do people keep saying that? :huh:

Actually Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he lost the election of Reichspräsident (President) to von Hindenburg. von Hindenburg appointed him to be Chancellor as a way of appeasing the Nazi party which had some 30% of the vote in that presidential election. On the death of von Hindenburg Hitler abolished the presidency, an illegal act which no one in the government opposed making him de facto leader of Germany.

[Skybird]

Von Papen and von Schleicher, the two chancellors before Hitler, had managed to cause rifts and conflicts with the Reichstag, while the Reichstag was pretty much blocked by communists and the dominating national socialists, and thus unable to act. Hitler promised Hindenburgh to free him from the burden of needing to govern with "Notstandsverordnungen". Hindenburg also needed to solve the impasse of the - mind you, national socialistically dominated - Reichstag, and a chancellor needing to govern against the Reichstag again was no option. So he decided for Hitler. A law saying that the head of the strongest party must be appointed, did not exist.

So, precise it would be to say the people voted for the national socialists . A direct election of Hitler for chancellor was not possible.

[Oberon]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1173876_614331098607666_684819038_n.jpg

/thread

[eddie]

Oh boy! Court orders the release of Mubarak!!

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/21/20115233-egypt-court-orders-release-of-former-ruler-mubarak-as-crisis-deepens?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=3

[Oberon]

Expect clashes on Sunday, marches have been called for apparently, so there'll be more bloodshed.

The old Sykes-Picot agreement is really being torn up isn't it? :doh:

[Skybird]

Who needs a democratic Egypt anyway?

te]In the big marble halls of Washington, in the slow ambling pace of summer cocktail parties where veterans of the political establishment still shake their heads at the fall of the Graham dynasty and the sale of the Post to a parvenu dot comer, the second favorite topic of conversation is how to make Egypt fall into line.

All the cocktail party guests, the senators, their aides, the editors and editorial writers, the heads of foreign affairs think-tanks and generals angling for a lobbying gig with a firm that just might want to move some big ugly steel down Egypt way once all the shouting dies down, haven’t had much luck.

Or as the New York Times, the paper that has displaced the Washington Post as the foreign affairs leak hole of the administration, put it, “all of the efforts of the United States government, all the cajoling, the veiled threats, the high-level envoys from Washington and the 17 personal phone calls by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, failed.”

And all the community organizer’s horses and his men couldn’t put the Muslim Brotherhood back together again.

Not even 17 personal phone calls from a man who couldn’t get through his confirmation sessions without becoming a national laughingstock accomplished anything.

Washington isn’t giving up, but its foreign aid card has just been neutralized by the Saudis who have offered to make up any aid that it cuts. And unlike Israel, Egypt isn’t vulnerable to threat of being isolated. Not with a sizable number of the Gulf oil countries at its back and the Russians and Chinese eager to jump in with defense contracts.

Instead of asking how to make the Egyptians do what Washington wants, it might be time for the cocktail party goers to ask what they really want from Egypt and what they really need from Egypt.

The two aren’t actually the same.

We may want Egypt to be democratic, because it fits our notions of how countries should work, but that isn’t something that we actually need.

The editorial writers and foreign policy experts who never got beyond the expat bars of Cairo will try to blame Egypt’s lack of democracy for our terrorism problem, but Egypt’s original unwillingness to bow to the Brotherhood nearly redirected Al Qaeda away from its war against America as the Egyptian faction sought to fight an internal war of the kind that Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria are now fighting.

We need a democratic Egypt about as much as we need sensitivity training from Mayor Filner. A democratic Egypt is unstable, vulnerable and unfriendly. And those are just its good sides.

Our first hint that democracy wouldn’t turn Egyptians into Americans should have been the polls showing that the majority of Egyptians favored the death penalty for adultery and blasphemy. There was no way such an electorate was going to produce some Egyptian counterpart of America.

Of the four major players in Egypt, three are fundamentally undemocratic, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian military and the Egyptian elites of officialdom, often mischaracterized as Mubarak loyalists, and one lightly sprinkled with democracy, the liberals and the left. And that sprinkling is very light indeed.

With an electorate whose idea of democracy is indistinguishable from Islamic law and a political elite that is undemocratic even when it participates in democratic elections, what reason was there for believing that overlaying democracy on them would lead to democratic values, rather than just democratic functions?

Now two undemocratic players and one lightly democratic player ganged up on a ruling undemocratic player. We can call the whole thing a coup or a candy store; it doesn’t matter much.

The process that removed Morsi was similar to the one that removed Mubarak. The same senators abandoning their cocktail parties to demand an end to foreign aid for Egypt because of the C word, were celebrating the same C word that took down Mubarak.

The difference, they will argue, is that Morsi was democratically elected. But so was Mubarak. But, they will say, Mubarak’s election was not truly democratic because it was marred by all sorts of electoral irregularities. And they will say that Mubarak acted like a tyrant. But the same was true of Morsi’s election. And Morsi did act like a tyrant.

The coup position is reduced to arguing that the overthrow of one elected leader by popular protests and the military was a very good thing while the overthrow of another by the same means was a bad thing because one election was somewhat cleaner than the other on a scale from Chicago to Detroit.

Never mind that the first leader was an ally of the United States and that the other was its enemy.

Is the gram’s worth of difference in democracy that we’re fighting for really worth undermining our national security?

I’ve met lawyers who have told me that they would have defended Hitler pro bono because of the principle of the thing. I’ve never entirely understood why the principle of this thing trumps genocide. The application of the pro bono Hitler lawyer clause to the Muslim Brotherhood’s democracy seems even more dubious. And I have a healthy suspicion of people who too eagerly volunteer to be Hitler’s lawyer or the Muslim Brotherhood’s press agent for the principle of the thing.

Are we really obligated to vigorously defend the Muslim Brotherhood’s right to take over a country because the election that allowed it to come to power wasn’t as dirty as the last election? Does the principle that democracy should be implemented here, there and everywhere, even if it leads to a terrorist group taking over the most powerful country in the region, really trump our national security?

Why have we volunteered to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s pro bono democracy lawyer?

The Arab Spring has thoroughly discredited the idea that spreading democracy enhances regional stability and protects our national security. We would have more luck promoting vital national interests by spreading viral goat yelling video memes than by bludgeoning other countries into having elections.

We don’t need a democratic Egypt. What we need is an Egypt that is not too excessively sympathetic to our enemies.

We’ll never be very good friends. A deep and meaningful friendship with a population that believes in chopping the hands off thieves and stoning everyone else was never in the cards. But most alliances aren’t built on enduring love or even mutual affection.

They’re built on something better. Cynical pragmatism.

We had a wonderfully pragmatic and lovingly cynical relationship with Egypt. If Chuck Hagel stops making 17 personal phone calls every hour telling the Egyptian government how not to shoot Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, maybe one day we’ll have a cynically pragmatic relationship with Egypt again.[/quote]

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/who-needs-a-democratic-egypt/print/

[Oberon]

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Skybird]

Forgive my ignorance, but that famous poem was by Auden, or Yeats? And the title I never knew anyway, so what is it?

[Oberon]

Forgive my ignorance, but that famous poem was by Auden, or Yeats?

Yeats :yep:

[Tribesman]

Who needs a democratic Egypt anyway?

Seems like someone is posting lots of articles from the loony fringe of the right wing nowadays.:03:
I like how Sultan Knish was claiming the Saudis were backing the brotherhood and it was important to confront them and their Saudi financiers as they are the real enemy by backing the military dictatorship to help Israel.
I wonder how he squares that with Saudi backing the dictatorship and the dictatorship claiming the brotherhood is a jewish plot.
Those loony blogs are so funny:rotfl2:

[Jimbuna]

Forgive my ignorance, but that famous poem was by Auden, or Yeats? And the title I never knew anyway, so what is it?

The poem title is 'The Second Coming'.

[Bubblehead1980]

Who needs a democratic Egypt anyway?

te]In the big marble halls of Washington, in the slow ambling pace of summer cocktail parties where veterans of the political establishment still shake their heads at the fall of the Graham dynasty and the sale of the Post to a parvenu dot comer, the second favorite topic of conversation is how to make Egypt fall into line.

All the cocktail party guests, the senators, their aides, the editors and editorial writers, the heads of foreign affairs think-tanks and generals angling for a lobbying gig with a firm that just might want to move some big ugly steel down Egypt way once all the shouting dies down, haven’t had much luck.

Or as the New York Times, the paper that has displaced the Washington Post as the foreign affairs leak hole of the administration, put it, “all of the efforts of the United States government, all the cajoling, the veiled threats, the high-level envoys from Washington and the 17 personal phone calls by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, failed.”

And all the community organizer’s horses and his men couldn’t put the Muslim Brotherhood back together again.

Not even 17 personal phone calls from a man who couldn’t get through his confirmation sessions without becoming a national laughingstock accomplished anything.

Washington isn’t giving up, but its foreign aid card has just been neutralized by the Saudis who have offered to make up any aid that it cuts. And unlike Israel, Egypt isn’t vulnerable to threat of being isolated. Not with a sizable number of the Gulf oil countries at its back and the Russians and Chinese eager to jump in with defense contracts.

Instead of asking how to make the Egyptians do what Washington wants, it might be time for the cocktail party goers to ask what they really want from Egypt and what they really need from Egypt.

The two aren’t actually the same.

We may want Egypt to be democratic, because it fits our notions of how countries should work, but that isn’t something that we actually need.

The editorial writers and foreign policy experts who never got beyond the expat bars of Cairo will try to blame Egypt’s lack of democracy for our terrorism problem, but Egypt’s original unwillingness to bow to the Brotherhood nearly redirected Al Qaeda away from its war against America as the Egyptian faction sought to fight an internal war of the kind that Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria are now fighting.

We need a democratic Egypt about as much as we need sensitivity training from Mayor Filner. A democratic Egypt is unstable, vulnerable and unfriendly. And those are just its good sides.

Our first hint that democracy wouldn’t turn Egyptians into Americans should have been the polls showing that the majority of Egyptians favored the death penalty for adultery and blasphemy. There was no way such an electorate was going to produce some Egyptian counterpart of America.

Of the four major players in Egypt, three are fundamentally undemocratic, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian military and the Egyptian elites of officialdom, often mischaracterized as Mubarak loyalists, and one lightly sprinkled with democracy, the liberals and the left. And that sprinkling is very light indeed.

With an electorate whose idea of democracy is indistinguishable from Islamic law and a political elite that is undemocratic even when it participates in democratic elections, what reason was there for believing that overlaying democracy on them would lead to democratic values, rather than just democratic functions?

Now two undemocratic players and one lightly democratic player ganged up on a ruling undemocratic player. We can call the whole thing a coup or a candy store; it doesn’t matter much.

The process that removed Morsi was similar to the one that removed Mubarak. The same senators abandoning their cocktail parties to demand an end to foreign aid for Egypt because of the C word, were celebrating the same C word that took down Mubarak.

The difference, they will argue, is that Morsi was democratically elected. But so was Mubarak. But, they will say, Mubarak’s election was not truly democratic because it was marred by all sorts of electoral irregularities. And they will say that Mubarak acted like a tyrant. But the same was true of Morsi’s election. And Morsi did act like a tyrant.

The coup position is reduced to arguing that the overthrow of one elected leader by popular protests and the military was a very good thing while the overthrow of another by the same means was a bad thing because one election was somewhat cleaner than the other on a scale from Chicago to Detroit.

Never mind that the first leader was an ally of the United States and that the other was its enemy.

Is the gram’s worth of difference in democracy that we’re fighting for really worth undermining our national security?

I’ve met lawyers who have told me that they would have defended Hitler pro bono because of the principle of the thing. I’ve never entirely understood why the principle of this thing trumps genocide. The application of the pro bono Hitler lawyer clause to the Muslim Brotherhood’s democracy seems even more dubious. And I have a healthy suspicion of people who too eagerly volunteer to be Hitler’s lawyer or the Muslim Brotherhood’s press agent for the principle of the thing.

Are we really obligated to vigorously defend the Muslim Brotherhood’s right to take over a country because the election that allowed it to come to power wasn’t as dirty as the last election? Does the principle that democracy should be implemented here, there and everywhere, even if it leads to a terrorist group taking over the most powerful country in the region, really trump our national security?

Why have we volunteered to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s pro bono democracy lawyer?

The Arab Spring has thoroughly discredited the idea that spreading democracy enhances regional stability and protects our national security. We would have more luck promoting vital national interests by spreading viral goat yelling video memes than by bludgeoning other countries into having elections.

We don’t need a democratic Egypt. What we need is an Egypt that is not too excessively sympathetic to our enemies.

We’ll never be very good friends. A deep and meaningful friendship with a population that believes in chopping the hands off thieves and stoning everyone else was never in the cards. But most alliances aren’t built on enduring love or even mutual affection.

They’re built on something better. Cynical pragmatism.

We had a wonderfully pragmatic and lovingly cynical relationship with Egypt. If Chuck Hagel stops making 17 personal phone calls every hour telling the Egyptian government how not to shoot Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, maybe one day we’ll have a cynically pragmatic relationship with Egypt again.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/who-needs-a-democratic-egypt/print/[/QUOTE]


Well said, many valid points. This is much more simple than it is made.Should the US be on the side of Islamic extremists(Morsi an dthe brotherhood) who lied to get into office and were rejected by the people thus removed by the military doing the will of the people, or are we on the side of the people. Those making trouble are not the majority of the country from what I have read.

Just put this in the US as a hypothetical.The people are so unsatisfied with a president who lied to obtain office(big stretch i know lol) and so they rise up and have him thrown out.Then his loyal band of ignorant followers fire up a large number but not a majority of the population and things become violent. Really, who is right here? Those who tossed the bum and his cohorts out of course. The American people could actually take a lesson from the people of Egypt here.

[Oberon]

Just put this in the US as a hypothetical.The people are so unsatisfied with a president who lied to obtain office(big stretch i know lol) and so they rise up and have him thrown out.Then his loyal band of ignorant followers fire up a large number but not a majority of the population and things become violent. Really, who is right here? Those who tossed the bum and his cohorts out of course. The American people could actually take a lesson from the people of Egypt here.

Even if the president was democratically elected, if he was chosen by the people?

[mapuc]

I know you may be real mad at me, but I have to write it

It seems that suddenly we all are expert on Egypt and Islam

I'm absolutly not an expert on none of them. That's why I haven't been posting in this very interesting thread.

Markus

[Oberon]

I know you may be real mad at me, but I have to write it

It seems that suddenly we all are expert on Egypt and Islam

I'm absolutly not an expert on none of them. That's why I haven't been posting in this very interesting thread.

Markus

I'm certainly not mad at you, you make a good point. At the end of the day, the real Egyptian experts will be those who decide the course of their countries history, and they are in Egypt itself. Not in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow or Beijing.

[Jimbuna]

I'm certainly not mad at you, you make a good point. At the end of the day, the real Egyptian experts will be those who decide the course of their countries history, and they are in Egypt itself. Not in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow or Beijing.

Most likely :yep:

[Skybird]

Even if the president was democratically elected, if he was chosen by the people?

What worth is your freedom of choice, if you have been fed manipulated info on which to make your decision?

The worth of elections is so very much overestimated in the West, in order to make the voting cattle satisfied with having nothing more to say then a cross on a ballot every four years. But even beyond that, elections are not centre and major focus of democracy. They are just a technical tool. Even if one would hold a more positive view of democracy than I do, one should be aware of this.

And it gets abused massively by both the voters a d the candidates.

Precious and significant is what is rare. Your vote in a meeting of ten voters - that is one thing. Your vote in an election having 30 million votes - puts the importance of your precious wonderful great vote into relation. On that scale, it is not the individual vote that has a meaning, but crowd dynamic havetaken over. And these are in explicit rejection of the individual.

[Oberon]

What worth is your freedom of choice, if you have been fed manipulated info on which to make your decision?

The worth of elections is so very much overestimated in the West, in order to make the voting cattle satisfied with having nothing more to say then a cross on a ballot every four years. But even beyond that, elections are not centre and major focus of democracy. They are just a technical tool. Even if one would hold a more positive view of democracy than I do, one should be aware of this.

And it gets abused massively by both the voters a d the candidates.

Precious and significant is what is rare. Your vote in a meeting of ten voters - that is one thing. Your vote in an election having 30 million votes - puts the importance of your precious wonderful great vote into relation. On that scale, it is not the individual vote that has a meaning, but crowd dynamic havetaken over. And these are in explicit rejection of the individual.

This is perhaps true, but in the particular case of the individual in question I suspect that it is more of a case of disappointment at the particular party which triumphed much more than it is a case of dissatisfaction with the system which elected the individual.

[Oberon]

And it begins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918642

[Skybird]

It was also reported some weeks ago that the military has regained much cointrol on the Sinai that Morsoi had allowed mto sliü to terrorists and fundamentalists. Egypt also cooperates with Israel which is aiding them there with intel and along the border.

Not to imagine how vulnerable the channel would be now if Morsi still were in office! :o Then this foiled attack now maybe would have been successful already days ago, when the Syria show started.

[Tribesman]

And it begins:

Begins Oberon?
It is long ongoing.
Plus as your article states.
It is unknown whether the attack was linked to the continuing protests by Muslim Brotherhood supporters against the 3 July ousting of President Mohammed Morsi by the army.

It was also reported some weeks ago that the military has regained much cointrol on the Sinai that Morsoi had allowed mto sliü to terrorists and fundamentalists. Egypt also cooperates with Israel which is aiding them there with intel and along the border.

Not to imagine how vulnerable the channel would be now if Morsi still were in office!
Sorry to introduce reality to your little bubble Skybird, but the agreement with Israel for Egypt to increase its troop levels in the Sinai was drawn up under Morsi.:doh:

[Oberon]

Begins Oberon?
It is long ongoing.
Plus as your article states.
It is unknown whether the attack was linked to the continuing protests by Muslim Brotherhood supporters against the 3 July ousting of President Mohammed Morsi by the army.

True, but this is the first attack since Morsi was knocked down that has taken place against shipping in the Suez is it not? Obviously it is quite debatable whether this is related to the MB, let's face it there's a lot of unrest in the area, and the MB is but one group.

[Skybird]

Oberon,

it have been several different "groups" being active on the Sinai since Mubarak was driven out, additionally to the predatory beduins, nevertheless one cannot say the MB "is just one group". It is pretty much the spiritus rector of very many, of most radical groups, and better financed and supported that any other. Al Quaeda was build by leading members of the MB, and compared to the MB, the structure and organisation of AQ as well as its financial funding possibilities always remained to be that of a amateur copycat group.

The MB is the group there is amongst the radical groups in the Islamic world, and since always far more influential and popular in the Arab world than AQ has ever been. That's why I always rated it as the far more dangerous enemy than AQ. It has better ties, more influence and more robust support throughout the Muslim world, amongst ordinary people as well as the elites.

The founder was a hot admirer of Hitler and the German Nazis, btw, but I take it for granted that you know that already.

[Tribesman]

True, but this is the first attack since Morsi was knocked down that has taken place against shipping in the Suez is it not? Obviously it is quite debatable whether this is related to the MB, let's face it there's a lot of unrest in the area, and the MB is but one group.
The MB is but one group, groups have been there since god knows when, they have been tolerated supported or hunted by Egyptian governments as the fancy takes them.
As a measure of the craziness that prevails, Al-Qaida in the Sinai claims the MB is a Zionist plot because they took part in elections, the new Egyptian dictator claims the MB is a Zionist plot to destabilise the country.:doh:

[MH]

...and tribesman is at loss and .... mumbo jumbo!!!!:haha:

Not that skybird is much of mr spook but it is all about having fun anyways lol .

(apologise for my lack of seriousness here lol)

[Jimbuna]

Egypt to try ex-president Morsi


Egypt's state prosecutor says he has referred ousted President Mohammed Morsi for trial on charges of inciting the murder of protesters.
The accusations relate to violence outside the presidential palace in Cairo last December when seven people were killed in clashes.
Fourteen other members of the Muslim Brotherhood are to stand trial on the same charges.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23924145

Somebody certainly means business.

[eddie]

My, how quickly things change over there!

[Bubblehead1980]

Even if the president was democratically elected, if he was chosen by the people?


Yes because many of the same people who voted for him wanted him gone, because he lied to get elected.The reason politicians do this is they figure they will lie to get elected then deal with after some time in office.The people of Egypt stood up and the via the military he was tossed out.The people have the right to change their mind and throw them out before they are able to cause damage.

[Sailor Steve]

The people have the right to change their mind and throw them out before they are able to cause damage.
Not really. We are bound by the law and can't throw anybody out until it has been proven that he broke the laws that bind him. The proper procedure has to be followed, and that can't happen until after at least some damage has been done.

[Bubblehead1980]

Not really. We are bound by the law and can't throw anybody out until it has been proven that he broke the laws that bind him. The proper procedure has to be followed, and that can't happen until after at least some damage has been done.

Well Morsi lied to get elected and was trying to turn Egypt into an Islamist state.Sure, they knew they were voting for the muslim brotherhood but figured he'd govern moderately and that proved not to be case.Fed up, they had him thrown out before the cancer had time to spread and was not treatable.Sometimes, have to say to hell with "proper procedure"

[Tribesman]

Yes because many of the same people who voted for him wanted him gone, because he lied to get elected.The reason politicians do this is they figure they will lie to get elected then deal with after some time in office.The people of Egypt stood up and the via the military he was tossed out.The people have the right to change their mind and throw them out before they are able to cause damage.

That might make some sense if the protesters were asking for the military dictatorship to be re-installed, but they were asking for early elections.
Its why so much of the opposition jumped ship after martial law made a comeback.

[Skybird]

Not really. We are bound by the law and can't throw anybody out until it has been proven that he broke the laws that bind him. The proper procedure has to be followed, and that can't happen until after at least some damage has been done.
The big stopper there is that the ruling elite can and does abuse its power to tailor laws that way that it protects them. Berlusconi in Italy has done so very obviously, but the elites do so in every country. Even the basis and fundament of legislation and law-making, constitutions, get eroded. Same abuses happen with the resources of a nation, they get abused to the max since the one elected into office has only temporary access to them and so thinks he must make as much use of them as possible as long as they are available to him. Result: constantly accumulating negative effects. The record debt burden is the most obvious symptom.

[Sailor Steve]

Well Morsi lied to get elected and was trying to turn Egypt into an Islamist state.Sure, they knew they were voting for the muslim brotherhood but figured he'd govern moderately and that proved not to be case.Fed up, they had him thrown out before the cancer had time to spread and was not treatable.Sometimes, have to say to hell with "proper procedure"
Ah, you were still talking about the Egyptians. Never mind.