Crisis in Egypt: Morsi and General Al-Sisi vow death

[Grant]

:roll:

He's from Barcelona.

 

[Grant]

It's nice how every once in a while, you demonstrate that when you comment on the United States, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about

The funny part is many of his type will explain America to Americans but will become quite upset when Americans explain Europe to Europeans. And this is an all too common attitude over there. I'm not met a European yet who wasn't an expert on the United States.

 

[Fiddytree]

So you deny that the religious right and the GOP are not against homosexuals and their rights, against abortion and for limiting womens rights? You deny that the religious right (read evangelicals) have called other Christian sects as "not Christian" and have talked hatefully against other religions? You deny that the GOP has a history of targeting minorities? Do you deny that the GOP has a history of massive nepotism despite claiming to fight it?

All these are what Morsi believes and has done.

Do you deny that the religious Right do not like Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies?

Look, Pete, let's be honest. Your statement was way off, and completely forgot that year when the American Right was not pleased with Arab Spring, because of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, if you merely wanted to look like a hack, but have a very ever so slight grain of truth, you could have said that Morsi perhaps ought to be considered a hero for establishing a more theocratic state in a previously secular one. You could have even suggested that their Islamophobic viewpoints prohibit them from seeing how much they have in common (although, this too would be an exaggeration). But you didn't.

 

[grip]

The Arab populations, especially the youth thru technology have begun to see how poor they are comparatively to Western/Asian/European secular democracies and are rebelling against authoritarian and religious rule. But the middle aged/older generation is afraid of losing their traditions and value system to what they consider a life of decadence, excessive freedom and are able to persuade-brainwash-recruit some younger zealots.

It's a mess because you've got competing ideologies on how things should be run. They want financial success and organization but they don't want rule by military or religious force, though they have to rely on these in the interim. They're not going to achieve what the Western, Asian or European cultures have in even 50 years, more less 2 with their lack of resources.

 

[PeteEU]

Do you deny that the religious Right do not like Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies?

Oh I do not deny that the outward policy is to officially not to "like" Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, but that also shows their double standard.

The Bush doctrine, the cornerstone of right wing policy the last decade, clearly states that regime change is a must and it is a must that democracy takes hold. Well it did in Egypt and that gave you Morsi. It also happened in Palestine and that gave you Hamas. You have Iraq, a country split into radicals and lesser radicals, all controlled to some point by Tehran. You cant both be against Islamists and for democracy in that part of the world... any idiot can see that Islamists would win any free and fair election, either through intimidation or sheer party political infrastructure (both present in Egypt for the MB). There is no doubt that in a parliamentary election in Egypt that Islamists would get a majority, especially considering the MB has basically written the districts.

Personally I welcome Morsi's removal and a strong man/men in power.. why? Egypt does not have the democratic basics and institutions in order, like many countries in the area. You cant have a democracy with out the basics... we have seen that across Africa the last 40 years.

You need independent judges, independent police and basic democratic institutions. Corruption also has to be fought, and that is one hell of a hurdle in Egypt. The very fact that Morsi was allowed to rush through constitutional changes shows how weak the basic democratic institutions are in Egypt.

Look, Pete, let's be honest. Your statement was way off, and completely forgot that year when the American Right was not pleased with Arab Spring, because of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The American right created the bloody so called Arab Spring by invading Iraq. How on earth can they then hate it? Ever heard of the Bush doctrine? Regime change from dictators to democracies is one of its 3 cornerstones..

Now, if you merely wanted to look like a hack, but have a very ever so slight grain of truth, you could have said that Morsi perhaps ought to be considered a hero for establishing a more theocratic state in a previously secular one. You could have even suggested that their Islamophobic viewpoints prohibit them from seeing how much they have in common (although, this too would be an exaggeration). But you didn't.

Eh, but I did.. or at least tried to.. And it is my whole point. The similarities between the MB and the American far right are many, but not total. The main difference is that radical far right Americans have the rule of law to live by, so they cant go around killing homos even though they would love to do so. Now in Egypt that is not so, the rule of law is weak and the law that is there, is written more than often by the radicals themselves. But the basic wishes and ideologies are pretty much the same in quite a number of instances. Political power to control people, both economically, politically and socially.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You don't get to toss out elections just because you don't like the results and still claim to be supporting legitimate representative government. In representative governments, "legitimacy" is conferred by elections, not by mobs and not by the military.

Again, you are wrong. Legitimacy is not a temporal term in office; it can be lost after an election due to a breakage of the social contract, as is the case in this situation. As I said earlier, when Morsi granted himself unlimited power to “protect” the nation and decreed that his actions were above judicial review, he usurped more power than was granted to him, thereby violating his legitimacy by breaking his social contract with the people.

Don’t take my word for it though, read the view of John Locke on this issue. I trust you know who Locke is considering your Ben Franklin avatar:

In both the forementioned Cases, when either the Legislative is changed, or the Legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of Rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the establish'd Legislative of any Society, and the Laws by them made pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the Umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their Controversies, and a bar to the state of War amongst them. They, who remove, or change the Legislative, take away this decisive power, which no Body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the People; and so destroying the Authority, which the People did, and no Body else can set up, and introducing a Power, which the People hath not authoriz'd, they actually introduce a state of War, which is that of Force without Authority: And thus by removing the Legislative establish'd by the Society (in whose decisions the People acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they unty the Knot, and expose the People a new to the state of War. And if those, who by force take away the Legislative, are Rebels, the Legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the People, their Liberties and Properties, shall by force invade, and indeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of War with those, who made them the Protectors and Guardians of their Peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, Rebellantes Rebels.

John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 227

You have said that Obama is authoritarian. I tend to agree - that is his tendency. That fact plus the Tea Party protests would not have legitimized the Marine Corps launching a coup and declaring themselves the selector of American political leadership.

First, I have not said Obama is an authoritarian. I believe he, as have most presidents, asserts powers not constitutionally granted to him. There's a big difference.

I agree with your hypothetical as written but if we were to modify your hypothetical to make it better represent the events that have actually transpired in Egypt, I would remain consistent in my views. If, theoretically, Obama were to push through amendments to the constitution without following the proper ratification process, followed by granting himself unlimited powers to protect the nation and rebuffed the Supreme Court of the United States when it ruled that his action were unconstitutional, issuing a decree that his power was beyond review by the courts, then yes, I would consider action by the military to remove him from office as legitimate. The fact that he was elected wouldn’t matter at this point because his legitimacy would be invalidated, having broken the social contract with the people.

But here's a fun couple of questions for you to ponder:

1. Who is really in charge of Egypt right now?

A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
B: El Baradi, who apparently is the spokesman of the Tamarod movement, but who appears to be exercising zero power.
C: The pupped that the SCAF just finished installing as interem president, and whom it can remove at will.

I choose "A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces."

If, however, you chose (A)...

2. Which do Military's tend to be?

A: Authoritarian.
B: Freedom loving hippies who wouldn't want to impose on anyone.

I choose "A: Authoritarian."


While this was indeed a fun game, it’s irrelevance in this case is rather glaring due to the omission of the following relevant facts:

Egypt’s military removed Mubarak from power and facilitated the transition to a new and democratically elected government. In Egypt’s case, the military has, and is, acting as a branch of government to assure there are checks and balances that can’t be waived/rebuffed by an executive like Morsi. The military had never completely let go of its ability to check the executive branch but it was trying to allow the people to choose their own way. When Morsi began to establish himself as an authoritarian that couldn’t be removed in the future, and the people finally said they’d had enough with 2-3 million taking to the streets (that's not a mob), the military decided to step in to preserve the country and prevent a civil war. It is preparing to facilitate the transition to a newly elected government. Honestly, I’m very impressed with how Egypt’s military has conducted itself.

 

[cpwill]

This is where we greatly differ, the rule of law is the people, as it is the people that make the laws and it's those same people that can change the laws.

Through the legal process, yes. That actually requires either the consent of the people or of their legitimately selected representatives. Through mob action, no. You don't get to overturn the actual legally expressed will of the people, which is an election by burning down some buildings and killing some of the Presidents' political supporters.

And to think the people of Egypt are to surrender to a dictator because he was elected in good faith, yet the people find the person they elected was a sham. They have every right to oust his ass.

They certainly do. That process is called "an election", and the next one was already scheduled.

First you say "they are unlikely to be able to wrest control of the economy from a now-empowered military, clue, under Morsi they didn't have an economy. So it sure as hell can't get any worse.

Stand by. You are about to be surprised. Egypt's issues were not created by Morsi, and they will survive his removal. The difference being that now the party in "charge" is a military who has no interest in actually "governing", and so has passed off that task to a loose amalgamation of self-contradicting splinter parties who cannot agree on what they want, much less how to get there.

Egypt remains a net importer of fuel, and government subsidies to that remain a tremendous burden on the state. To solve the states' fiscal downspin a ruling party would need the political ability to weather the storm that reduced subsidies (and, thus, increased prices) would create, but we have just ensured that no political party would have the ability to do that. Shortage of foreign exchange funds have already started causing temporary shortages with accompanying price spikes, which also feeds into food. Egypt's population has doubled since 1990, but the lack of arable land and top-heavy economic organization has meant that food production has barely increased, if not fallen, leaving Egypt importing 50% of its' wheat supply, upon which the population is heavily dependent. The increasing shortages of foreign exchange funds is going to mean that they are going to start seeing shortages in food, as well.

In order to outgrow their current tailspin, Egyptians needed to free up their economy, which is currently heavily dominated by the military, which owns and operates entire industries. The only force in the country with the political unity, base of support, and level of organization that left it capable of standing up to the military and possibly achieving that task was..... the Muslim Brotherhood. Now the opposition has instead signed up for a military coup, ensconcing their position and ensuring that anyone in the near to mid future who comes after the military's privileges will suddenly find that that always-hard-to-pin-down "will-of-the-people" is no longer with him, and he is in the jail cell next to Morsi.

Another item you are missing, under Morsi there would be no more elections. Yeah, Morsi makes his own laws and so now you expect the people to bow to his new laws.

:shrug: if Mursi had actually attempted to do away with follow-on elections, then he would have been revolting against the Constitution and representative government, and a forceful replacement of him would have been justified.

Since he didn't, your case has no legs.

And maybe post up all those buildings burning and people killed

...Anti-government protesters in Egypt have stormed the national headquarters of President Mohammed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood in the capital, Cairo.

People ransacked the building in the Moqattam area and set parts on fire.

Officials say eight people have been killed in clashes outside since Sunday, while eight others have died elsewhere....

etc. and so forth.

Remember we had our own civil war and how many people died in that war.

Between 2 and 2.7% of the populace. So, in Egypt, that would translate to between 1.68 and 2.3 million people. That's alot of people for you to sacrifice because you're not willing to wait a couple of years for an election.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Through the legal process, yes. That actually requires either the consent of the people or of their legitimately selected representatives. Through mob action, no. You don't get to overturn the actual legally expressed will of the people, which is an election by burning down some buildings and killing some of the Presidents' political supporters.



They certainly do. That process is called "an election", and the next one was already scheduled.

Pardon me but this sounds rather naïve considering Morsi focused on the consolidation of his, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s, power rather than the more pressing issues he claimed he would deal with. If he hadn’t been working so hard to consolidate his permanent and uncontestable authoritarian rule, I’d probably agree with you but you continue to deny the facts.

if Mursi had actually attempted to do away with follow-on elections, then he would have been revolting against the Constitution and representative government, and a forceful replacement of him would have been justified.

Since he didn't, your case has no legs.

Let me see if I understand your position on this. It sounds to me like you are saying that elections are all that matter when it comes to legitimacy or illegitimacy. Would this be a correct interpretation of your views? North Korea holds elections every five years so according to your standard, if I understand it correctly, North Korea is a democracy?

I think you have been avoiding my posts because you have no answers. I entertained you by playing your lame multiple choice game so I think you owe me enough respect to answer my charges or admit that you have no answers.

 

[cpwill]

:lol: I'm guessing this is the one you got all butt-hurt and messaged me about? Okay, flex, just for you :

Pardon me but this sounds rather naïve considering Morsi focused on the consolidation of his, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s, power rather than the more pressing issues he claimed he would deal with. If he hadn’t been working so hard to consolidate his permanent and uncontestable authoritarian rule, I’d probably agree with you but you continue to deny the facts.

I don't deny Morsi was authoritarian nor do I deny that he was abusive of his power. Pointing out that mobs and junta's do not confer representative legitimacy is hardly a defense of every idiot politician who manages to win more votes than the other guys. Mind you, if you want Egypt to be able to move forward at this point, you are almost going to need a politician willing and able to do so, as only a powerful presidency would be able to stand up to the military. That doesn't excuse Morsi's actions, but it does place them in the proper, tragic, light. There isn't really a James Madison / George Washington / John Marshall option in Egypt. Your options are: A) a democratically elected MB or B) non-democratically elected power bases from the Mubarak era. C) Liberal Democracy isn't really on the menu at this point. Those who would support it are too few and too fractured to form a base for political power.

Let me see if I understand your position on this. It sounds to me like you are saying that elections are all that matter when it comes to legitimacy or illegitimacy. Would this be a correct interpretation of your views? North Korea holds elections every five years so according to your standard, if I understand it correctly, North Korea is a democracy?

No and that is an excellent qualifier - the elections must be free and fair, which, again, Egypts' were. Had the MB abused the next set of elections to make them not free and fair - or had they gone the route of Hamas in Palestine and simply neglected to have any, then your argument here would have more merit. However, they did not do that.

I think you have been avoiding my posts because you have no answers.

I think you are being entertainingly narcissistic You may find this hard to believe, but approximately zero percent of my self image revolves around you.

 

[wrencep]

Morsi has to step down. If not he will be forced to do so. Military gains support of people which means that the General rules Egypt, not the President and Egyptians. This situation looks like power transition from President to General - From democracy of Muslin Brotherhood to military dictatorship. I wish inspired protests of ordinary people wouldn't be used as a decoy or cause to cancel constitution.

 

[HoongLoong]

But the US has had 240 years od Democracy with many bumps along the way, including a Civil War, and now it appears that the DOJ may have been working with the IRS and FBI. Democracy is a messy business, for sure, and it seems to me that the people were right to fight the problems they face against the Muslim Brotherhood before they became entrenched as precedence. They are, as Barney Fife might say, nipping it in the bud.

The following are the exchanges from another thread but appropriate in this one:

Quote Originally Posted by spanky View Post
As much as I detest Morsi, he was elected in a democratic election.

MY RESPONSE:
WTF is wrong with people like you ?!?!?
Hitler was elected "democratically" !!!!! Does that mean you were/are going to defend that butthole because he was elected "democratically" ?!?!?!?
--------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
Examples of leaders who were not democratically elected

Godwin's Law

That, however, is neither here nor there. Obama was also democratically elected, and he is also an abuser of the law and a generally gawdawful president. If someone in the military were to attempt to use the Tea Party as an excuse to launch a coup, however, I would find myself rapidly in (quite possibly) armed opposition to that group.

You seem to be confusing "representative government" with the winner of a particular election.

MY RESPONSE:

Your libber verbiage is transparent. One can always claim EVERY election is rigged because of one's own personal bias.

Using the same kind of bullpoop Obummer was elected by a 95% plus black vote, and by non-black voters consumed with a faulty guilt complex re blacks which makes the Obummer election clearly a RACIST election.
------------------------------------------------------

 

[GPS_Flex]

:lol: I'm guessing this is the one you got all butt-hurt and messaged me about? Okay, flex, just for you :

Nope, Not too smart are you? For future reference, you might want to think twice about challenging me because you don't get to call me out and then pretend you forgot you called me out. Do your homework lazy ass. I just schooled you on political science and you ran away like a scared little girl.

Review my responses and answer in kind or check out as a coward who has no game!

You called me out and then ran away. I'm calling you out because you called me out and then decided it was easier to post BS to another thread rather than deal with the reality my question and answer forced you into. I call you a coward if you call me out on an issue and choose to ignore my response.

 

[cpwill]

:yawn: alright. if you're too busy being butt-hurt that your oh-so-special post didn't get replied to by me immediately, I accept that you choose to end the discussion. All you had to do was decently ask about it and I would have hurried on over, replied,and apologized for the delay.


But if you're more interested in making yourself look silly.... :shrug: I really can't help you.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I understand. You picked the fight and called me out with your little question and answer games but you quickly realized you were in over your head and couldn’t explain yourself.

No hard feelings…this forum is full of political hacks like you who think they can solve ever issue with a one line zinger.

I expected you to be a little more schooled on the history of the Constitution and the enlightenment thinkers that rally set the premise for serious discussion of issues like this. Was I wrong? Are you a lightweight thinker who chose Benjamin Franklin because he is on our money?

 

[cpwill]

I agree with your hypothetical as written but if we were to modify your hypothetical to make it better represent the events that have actually transpired in Egypt, I would remain consistent in my views. If, theoretically, Obama were to push through amendments to the constitution without following the proper ratification process, followed by granting himself unlimited powers to protect the nation and rebuffed the Supreme Court of the United States when it ruled that his action were unconstitutional, issuing a decree that his power was beyond review by the courts, then yes, I would consider action by the military to remove him from office as legitimate. The fact that he was elected wouldn’t matter at this point because his legitimacy would be invalidated, having broken the social contract with the people.

1. Who is really in charge of Egypt right now?

A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
B: El Baradi, who apparently is the spokesman of the Tamarod movement, but who appears to be exercising zero power.
C: The pupped that the SCAF just finished installing as interem president, and whom it can remove at will.

I choose "A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces."

Which do Military's tend to be?

A: Authoritarian.
B: Freedom loving hippies who wouldn't want to impose on anyone.

I choose "A: Authoritarian."


While this was indeed a fun game, it’s irrelevance in this case is rather glaring due to the omission of the following relevant facts:

Egypt’s military removed Mubarak from power and facilitated the transition to a new and democratically elected government. In Egypt’s case, the military has, and is, acting as a branch of government to assure there are checks and balances that can’t be waived/rebuffed by an executive like Morsi. The military had never completely let go of its ability to check the executive branch but it was trying to allow the people to choose their own way. When Morsi began to establish himself as an authoritarian that couldn’t be removed in the future, and the people finally said they’d had enough with 2-3 million taking to the streets (that's not a mob), the military decided to step in to preserve the country and prevent a civil war. It is preparing to facilitate the transition to a newly elected government. Honestly, I’m very impressed with how Egypt’s military has conducted itself.

Are you, then. Well, I'm glad to hear that the military is stepping in to ensure that violence is avoided and free democracy and good governance is maintained.

 

[MMC]

You forget that the difference between the US right and Morsi are very small. Both believe in many of the same things and act in the same way. Hence Morsi was a hero to the radical religious right in the US, because he did what they have not (as of yet) been able to do.. push a religious based government through favoring themselves and putting other religions and sects within their own at a massive disadvantage.

Correction.....that would be the Neo Cons on the Right. Not the Right itself.

 

[MMC]

:lol: I'm guessing this is the one you got all butt-hurt and messaged me about? Okay, flex, just for you :



I don't deny Morsi was authoritarian nor do I deny that he was abusive of his power. Pointing out that mobs and junta's do not confer representative legitimacy is hardly a defense of every idiot politician who manages to win more votes than the other guys. Mind you, if you want Egypt to be able to move forward at this point, you are almost going to need a politician willing and able to do so, as only a powerful presidency would be able to stand up to the military. That doesn't excuse Morsi's actions, but it does place them in the proper, tragic, light. There isn't really a James Madison / George Washington / John Marshall option in Egypt. Your options are: A) a democratically elected MB or B) non-democratically elected power bases from the Mubarak era. C) Liberal Democracy isn't really on the menu at this point. Those who would support it are too few and too fractured to form a base for political power.



No and that is an excellent qualifier - the elections must be free and fair, which, again, Egypts' were. Had the MB abused the next set of elections to make them not free and fair - or had they gone the route of Hamas in Palestine and simply neglected to have any, then your argument here would have more merit. However, they did not do that.



I think you are being entertainingly narcissistic You may find this hard to believe, but approximately zero percent of my self image revolves around you.

Not necessarily so CPW.....when groups of the MB looked to go with someone who was in the MB that wasn't Rank. Who do you think they were told to vote for? Much of this is due to the people knowing that the last election wasn't fair. Was taken off course by the MB.

The MB in Egypt has proven exactly what they are.....once they decided to go after Christians and Non Identifying Arabs. This isn't about them standing for Democracy.

Moreover to let them continue on with whatever version of Democracy is within their own minds.....isn't the way to go either. As they will seek to usurp all meaning of Democracy from the Western Civilized World. To mock, breakdown, and use its own set of tools to break down itself.

The MB has stated there will be No negotiations. That they will not accept nor tolerate. Such words from those not strong enuff to back the play. Do you think the MB should be making threats and committing purposeful attacks upon those that are Innocent? Their fight is with the Egyptian Military. Whom they think they can take on. Not unarmed people who can't fight back.

So again.....Democracy and or any rule of Law. Would be at threat....from the MB. Do you think that the MB should be allowed to come out of its death-throes?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Not necessarily so CPW.....when groups of the MB looked to go with someone who was in the MB that wasn't Rank. Who do you think they were told to vote for? Much of this is due to the people knowing that the last election wasn't fair. Was taken off course by the MB.

The MB in Egypt has proven exactly what they are.....once they decided to go after Christians and Non Identifying Arabs. This isn't about them standing for Democracy.

Moreover to let them continue on with whatever version of Democracy is within their own minds.....isn't the way to go either. As they will seek to usurp all meaning of Democracy from the Western Civilized World. To mock, breakdown, and use its own set of tools to break down itself.

The MB has stated there will be No negotiations. That they will not accept nor tolerate. Such words from those not strong enuff to back the play. Do you think the MB should be making threats and committing purposeful attacks upon those that are Innocent? Their fight is with the Egyptian Military. Whom they think they can take on. Not unarmed people who can't fight back.

So again.....Democracy and or any rule of Law. Would be at threat....from the MB. Do you think that the MB should be allowed to come out of its death-throes?

Is it possible for us to support Egypt and help it succeed but not support the MB?

 

[MMC]

Is it possible for us to support Egypt and help it succeed but not support the MB?

The answer to that question.....yes it is. There are over 82 million people in Egypt. The MB is falling out grace throughout the ME. In Syria, in Libya, in Iraq. Now is the time to take them out. After it is all done and over with. No Egyptians will want to ever identify with them again. The People of Egypt are not Stupid. They see the MB throw Money to others in other countries as well. When they should be taking care of whats at home. They see them go after the innocent. Turkish Egyptians, Berbers, Zaydi, and of course the Copts. You name it.

Supporting the Military and then pushing them to give it to the people of Egypt would be a better way to go IMO. Let the people of Egypt pick their own Parties. Not the MB who takes power and gets rid of any competition by various groups. Also based on ethnicity.

So if we are truly about wanting to see Egypt with a real democracy. Standing for that Noble Virtue of a Government by the people, of the people, and for the people. A Republic.....then it is time that the MB be removed from all discussions going forward. Permanently!

 

[Grant]

Nope, Not too smart are you? For future reference, you might want to think twice about challenging me because you don't get to call me out and then pretend you forgot you called me out. Do your homework lazy ass. I just schooled you on political science and you ran away like a scared little girl.

Review my responses and answer in kind or check out as a coward who has no game!

You called me out and then ran away. I'm calling you out because you called me out and then decided it was easier to post BS to another thread rather than deal with the reality my question and answer forced you into. I call you a coward if you call me out on an issue and choose to ignore my response.

Yes, you really know hot to debate!

 

[shrubnose]

I was of the understanding Obama was supposed to have the world love us again.

Not so much in Egypt

Doug Ross @ Journal: 15 Photos From the Tahrir Square Protests You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #Egypt #Morsi #Obama

If everybody loves you, you're not doing something right.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 

[Grant]

If everybody loves you, you're not doing something right.

Many still appear to love Obama, though there are always fewer who respect him.

 

[MMC]

Well.....looks like some of the crisis is being solved.

Muslim Brotherhood supporters face murder, terrorism probe: state media.....

Egyptian prosecutors have placed 250 Muslim Brotherhood supporters under investigation for murder, attempted murder and terrorism, the state MENA news agency said on Saturday.

Police arrested more than 1,000 Brotherhood sympathizers in the wake of clashes on Friday that pitted followers of deposed Islamist President Mohamed Mursi against the security forces.....snip~

Muslim Brotherhood supporters face murder, terrorism probe: state media

The sympathizers.....wonder how many of them are AQ or AQ likes, huh? :doh Egypt needs to impose the ban on them again. But this time rather than let them stick around and continue to grow. They need to shut them down completely. Including all those sympathizers that needs some tissues for those issues.

None should have any sympathy for these guys.

 

[Grant]

Well.....looks like some of the crisis is being solved.

Muslim Brotherhood supporters face murder, terrorism probe: state media.....

Egyptian prosecutors have placed 250 Muslim Brotherhood supporters under investigation for murder, attempted murder and terrorism, the state MENA news agency said on Saturday.

Police arrested more than 1,000 Brotherhood sympathizers in the wake of clashes on Friday that pitted followers of deposed Islamist President Mohamed Mursi against the security forces.....snip~

Muslim Brotherhood supporters face murder, terrorism probe: state media

The sympathizers.....wonder how many of them are AQ or AQ likes, huh? :doh Egypt needs to impose the ban on them again. But this time rather than let them stick around and continue to grow. They need to shut them down completely. Including all those sympathizers that needs some tissues for those issues.

None should have any sympathy for these guys.

Perhaps 'the moderates' we've heard so much about are finally making their voices heard. With some luck perhaps Egypt can find another Atatürk who will do for Egypt what Ataturk did for Turkey. Turkey is also discovering that once democracy is gained it must also be strictly maintained.

 

[donsutherland1]

Just a few quick thoughts...

First, I believe the ongoing events in Egypt are a function of domestic rivalries (largest driver) and foreign response, including what has been a consistently reactive U.S. policy approach (small driver, but probably one that has made a marginal difference in the calculations of the parties).

Second, in my view, the U.S. should be very careful to understand that Egypt is a strategic state. As such, it should avoid hasty or emotion-driven policy responses. Such responses could actually backfire leading to greater rigidity among the parties (a transitional government fearing it must act more quickly and decisively and the Muslim Brotherhood's expecting U.S. policy to shift in its direction).

Third, the immediate policy focus should be on getting Egypt's government to work toward the goal of a stable permanent government. Parties willing to participate should be able to join in the process. Those unwilling to participate should not be compelled to participate, but the door should be open for their inclusion down the road once they are ready. The principles for a permanent government that should be enshrined in a future constitution should be inclusive, but with appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of all of Egypt's people.

Fourth, the U.S. should be working more, not less, with Egypt's military in developing appropriate rules of engagement for dealing with protests and violence so that civilian lives would be protected and bloody outcomes related to clearing protests could be avoided.

Fifth, the seemingly favored tactic of seeking a coaliton government should be avoided. The differences among the parties to the conflict are too large to allow for a stable and effective coalition government.