Egypt.........it's a worry

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:22 am

Egypt woke up to yet another new ruler today after President Mohamed Morsi, the democratically-elected Islamist president, was ousted in a military-led coup. A judge has been appointed as the country's interim leader and fresh elections promised

Well the bad guy has been toppled, by the military.

Wonder if strings were pulled and by whom.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:25 am

Bruv;1431007 wrote: Egypt woke up to yet another new ruler today after President Mohamed Morsi, the democratically-elected Islamist president, was ousted in a military-led coup. A judge has been appointed as the country's interim leader and fresh elections promised

Well the bad guy has been toppled, by the military.

Wonder if strings were pulled and by whom.

We can only hope that the anger that's being shown does not spill over into violence as the parties jocky for position in the run up to the new elections.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:07 am

Bruv;1431007 wrote: Well the bad guy has been toppled, by the military.
"Bad guy" in what sense? This is the chap who won the only fairly-administered non-corrupt national election for President that Egypt has run since Alexander the Great invaded.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:25 am

TÃ½r;1431020 wrote: "Bad guy" in what sense? This is the chap who won the only fairly-administered non-corrupt national election for President that Egypt has run since Alexander the Great invaded.

and then proceeded to amend the constitution granting himself unlimited powers to "protect" the nation in late November 2012,and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts and went on to start creating an Islamic one party state. Do you really need to ask why people were calling for him to resign.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:38 am

gmc;1431023 wrote: and then proceeded to amend the constitution granting himself unlimited powers to "protect" the nation in late November 2012,and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts and went on to start creating an Islamic one party state. Do you really need to ask why people were calling for him to resign."Unlimited" is an over-egged cake, and "to start creating" merely guesses his intention with no evidence - I've seen nothing to suggest "one party" in any of his policies.

Meanwhile we now have all of Mubarak's friends and relations crowing, and I have no doubt we also have all of Mubarak's torturers cleaning the dust off their equipment while Mubarak's secret police round up the Muslim Brotherhood by their thousands.

Or is Mubarak no longer the really truly actual "bad guy" with the really truly actual Swiss bank accounts and a history of corruption dating back thirty years? I'd be very surprised to hear he's not back in a suit attending dinner parties and toasting his uniformed proteges.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 1:14 pm

I doubt very much this is a good thing for the Egyptian people, I know Morsi was not since he was beholden to what are essentially extremists in their own right. No faction in Egypts recent history has really cared about the Egyptian people or "democracy". This Arab spring has essentially gotten nothing for your average Arab citizen. Libya is chaos and Syria is in a civil war of a brutal nature. It appears that in Turkey the Muslim extremists and cleptocrats are well along with the destruction of Ataturks dream of a secular and modern Turkey.

On the subject of Egypt I sure am not going to speculate. I wish the people the best.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:15 pm

TÃ½r;1431024 wrote: "Unlimited" is an over-egged cake, and "to start creating" merely guesses his intention with no evidence - I've seen nothing to suggest "one party" in any of his policies.

Meanwhile we now have all of Mubarak's friends and relations crowing, and I have no doubt we also have all of Mubarak's torturers cleaning the dust off their equipment while Mubarak's secret police round up the Muslim Brotherhood by their thousands.

Or is Mubarak no longer the really truly actual "bad guy" with the really truly actual Swiss bank accounts and a history of corruption dating back thirty years? I'd be very surprised to hear he's not back in a suit attending dinner parties and toasting his uniformed proteges.

Then I suggest you take a look a closer look at what he was doing, if you don't think it was a blatant attempt to create an islamic state that up to you. It's the same in Turkey - one of the oldest secular states in the middle east people are on the streets protesting about the imposition of religious laws and repression. o

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:45 pm

I know less about this than most of you lot.

I do know there has been a popular uprising, how widespread and how popular...... who can tell from this distance?

If an elected leader is unpopular enough in the UK, they get rid of them.

If an elected party, or their policies are obviously unpopular, they change them (Poll Tax riots)

If the opposition/ruling party can muster enough support they have procedures to call an election.

I find the military taking control, even in the interim........very worrying.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:56 pm

Bruv;1431073 wrote: I know less about this than most of you lot.

I do know there has been a popular uprising, how widespread and how popular...... who can tell from this distance?

If an elected leader is unpopular enough in the UK, they get rid of them.

If an elected party, or their policies are obviously unpopular, they change them (Poll Tax riots)

If the opposition/ruling party can muster enough support they have procedures to call an election.

I find the military taking control, even in the interim........very worrying.

Then again when you have one political party prepared to use force and terrorism to get compliance with their policies sometimes force is what it will take to combat them. The muslim brotherhood were out to create an islamic state - they have never pretended otherwise except to get themselves in to power - morsi had promised to work with the opposition almost the first thing he did was amend the constitution to make his decisions exempt from oversight by the courts.

Coptic Christians under siege as mob attacks Cairo cathedral - Africa - World - The Independent

The challenge for Egypt's Copts - Features - Al Jazeera English

Sectarian violence in Egypt sees two churches attacked in one week - The Commentator

What would you do if faced with the prospect of a fundamentalist Islamic state?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 05, 2013 2:57 pm

gmc;1431114 wrote:

What would you do if faced with the prospect of a fundamentalist Islamic state?

Put that way, probably the best thing to happen.

It is not the prospect of a fundamentalist anything that worries me, it is the taking away the right to free elections now and in the future.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:17 am

It has all gone horribly wrong according to the News.

So many countries have problems moving from dictatorial regimes to democracy, makes you wonder what the best way to govern 85 million people really is.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:15 am

Perhaps it's a question of what the majority of the electorate want. As in having a fairly-run election without stuffing ballot boxes, with international observers, the whole works.

They did that a couple of years ago and the majority of the electorate wanted a parliament run by the Muslim Brotherhood, with a President from the Muslim Brotherhood. I take it we all agree that's a fact, we do remember the events? That choice happens not to conform to the wishes of the current US administration and so we have, instead, a military dictatorship taking power in a coup after the streets were flooded with protesters.

Now we have protesters on the streets supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and, not surprisingly, they're being cowed by killing them where they stand. At least that shows the new military dictatorship isn't on their side.

Why, precisely, are we here on ForumGarden disowning the democratic process?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:55 am

Yes but democracy is more than just a numbers game. Its what you do when you get there. Morsi certainly played the game and was first past the post but what he did subsequently was to change the rules and move the goalposts. He obviously pissed of a lot of people to wake them up into protest the way they did. Thatcher woke us up. Just because she was elected didnt stop us as a people from going onto the streets

Morsi's Power Grab: 'There Was a Disease but This Is Not the Remedy' - David Rohde - The Atlantic

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:28 am

Snowfire;1431132 wrote: Yes but democracy is more than just a numbers game. Its what you do when you get there. Morsi certainly played the game and was first past the post but what he did subsequently was to change the rules and move the goalposts. He obviously pissed of a lot of people to wake them up into protest the way they did. Thatcher woke us up. Just because she was elected didnt stop us as a people from going onto the streetsI note that the British Armed Forces didn't eject her party from power or arrest her Cabinet, regardless of how much they sided with the protestors. They, unlike these corrupt Egyptian officers, allowed democratic processes to eventually remove her party from office.

Things weren't always like this in England - the previous time we had a ruler like Thatcher, the army lopped his wretched head off in Whitehall while a cheering crowd showed their gratitude. We have progressed from those times. For some reason the Egyptian Armed Forces have failed to keep pace with post-medieval practices.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:22 am

I think what I'm trying to say is that I may have possibly have voted for Morsi, given what had gone before but I think I would have also been on the streets the past week, given what followed

As for the Armed forces, who's side are they meant to be on. The Government or the people ?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:58 am

Well one thing is for sure, the usual suspects are present. The Egyptian military is firmly in the grip of the US, we're the ones who pay their generals and supplement their military infrastructure, Saudi Arabia simply sees The Muslim Brotherhood as a rival for influence and power in the region. The MB is a popular movement that has been challenging the status quo in the Muslim world for decades but in reality they're no different from what exists now when it comes to extremes. Some info on US aid to Egypt.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf

I don't believe there is anything going on there that is meant to empower the Egyptian people, it's simply a power struggle between the ruling classes of the region.

As for the Armed forces, who's side are they meant to be on. The Government or the people ?

They're meant to be on the side of the state, not the people or the politicians. The state being the country. That's why the SAA has done some of the things it has in the past, they are in Syria to maintain the peace and stability of Syria. Of course this is subject to many factors. Look at Turkey, for decades the military was the backers of Ataturk's policies in Turkey. If any group with extremist tendencies got into power they would intervene and throw them out. As of these last few years the Muslims have become more powerful and as they did they arrested many military commanders and jailed them. The Turkish military now has people in the high command that are obedient not to the Turkish state, but to the politicians in power. Many countries do this.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:31 am

They're meant to be on the side of the state, not the people or the politicians. The state being the country.

Of which the people and government are part

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:47 pm

TÃ½r;1431133 wrote: I note that the British Armed Forces didn't eject her party from power or arrest her Cabinet

They did more than that to Herr Hitler.........was he not a popularly elected leader ?

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:47 pm

Bruv;1431157 wrote: [quote=TÃ½r]I note that the British Armed Forces didn't eject her party from power or arrest her CabinetThey did more than that to Herr Hitler.........was he not a popularly elected leader ?

We were, I thought, discussing coups by natives rather than the away games of our national squad.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:09 pm

Of which the people and government are part

In a book I read some time ago there are various opinions on the duty of a military within the borders of its respective country. A Soviet soldier was expected to lay down his life for the people of Russia and for the Motherland. It says nothing about dying for a politician or a political cause or the "state" in a political sense. The oath of a US soldier says for him to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Turkey has an army which is (or more recently was) sworn to uphold the principles of Kemalism. An ideology.

A state can be the people, the physical place, the political order or an ideology as in the case of Turkey.

I suspect the Egyptian army is supporting a status quo, one that favors the generals in charge. Not the people.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:12 am

TÃ½r;1431158 wrote: We were, I thought, discussing coups by natives rather than the away games of our national squad.

I was talking of populary elected people who proved to be untrustworthy of the electorates vote...........because they were interested in Power and not democracy.

The point about our Maggie, was she could see she had gone a step too far with the Poll Tax, and did a U turn to save herself.

If you remember when eventually she was unwanted by those closest to her they threw her out unceremoniously.....................because she hadn't managed to alter the system enough to ensure they couldn't............unlike Morsi and Hitler.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:42 am

Bruv;1431165 wrote: unlike Morsi and Hitler.Now that' just plain wish-fulfillment and invention on your part. You're demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood solely to justify the outrage of the coup against it.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:57 am

TÃ½r;1431166 wrote: Now that' just plain wish-fulfillment and invention on your part. You're demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood solely to justify the outrage of the coup against it.

There's no demonising. Morsi alienated the very large secular population and moved further and deeper into Islamist conservatism. Most saw it as a shift toward becoming a new Iran, with all the ultraconservatism that comes with it. That might have been fine for some but it clearly scared most of the population on to the streets.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:25 pm

TÃ½r;1431166 wrote: Now that' just plain wish-fulfillment and invention on your part. You're demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood solely to justify the outrage of the coup against it.

Do you wonder why so many people got off their butts and took to the streets................or was that the Poll tax riots.

That is a bit subtle even for me, likening our mature democracy and the reaction of the ruling party to mass public outrage, and the genuine mass outcry of an infant democracy when their rulers overstep the mark, but without the safety mechanisms we take for granted.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:01 pm

I suggest the reason the armed forces staged their coup now was that, had the next elections rolled round on schedule and been run fairly and with international inspection, Morsi's term in office would have been validated as democratic. He might have won another term, he might not, but he'd have demonstrated his commitment to fair elections. The coup has destroyed that particular future.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:06 pm

This one was US-sponsored too..."The armed forces of Chile acted today solely motivated by patriotic inspiration to save the country from the chaos into which it was being plunged by the Marxist government of Salvador Allende," announced Gen Pinochet in staccato voice. "The junta will maintain judicial powerâ€¦ the chambers will remain in recess until further orders. That is all."

His fellow junta member, Gustavo Leigh, added a few words helpful to future generals needing inspiration for their own declarations - patriotic duty, sacrifice, public support. "In order to protect the sacred interests of the homeland we found ourselves obliged to take on the sad and painful mission which we have undertaken," declared Gen Leigh. "We are not afraid. We know the enormous responsibility that will rest on our shoulders. But we are convinced, we are quite sure that the vast majority of the Chilean people is with us."

BBC News - Sunglasses optional: Essential props for declaring a coup

I wonder whether the Egyptian Armed Forces will beat the Chilean Armed Forces' game score of 3,000 dead.

Post by **jones jones** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:20 am

Tunisia was the birthplace of the Arab Spring in December 2010... President Zine El Abidine Ben Al was forced to flee the country and elections were held on January 14 2011. Even so instability continues.

The downfall of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was a decisive moment as he had been one of the West’s key allies in the region for thirty years. The division between Islamists and secular parties soon soured and the Egyptian military still remains the single most powerful player in the country.

In Libya Qaddafi’s regime was brought down only after the intervention of NATO forces. Now a weak central government struggles to assert its authority.

Yemen was the next victim of the Arab Spring and many hundreds of people died as the army disintegrated into two political camps. Meanwhile Al Qaeda began to seize territory in the south. Alter a settlement brokered by Saudi Arabia, the president agreed to step aside. However little progress has been made since.

Bahrain was not spared either and the Royal Family was only saved by military intervention by neighboring countries. Protests continue.

Syria has slid into a protracted civil war and both sides have outside backers, Russia supports the regime while the west supports the rebels.

The Arab Spring hit Morocco in early 2011 and the King blunted most protests by simply offering constitutional amendments and more state funding of low-income families.

In Jordan the King managed to put the Arab Spring on hold by making cosmetic changes to the political system and reshuffling the government. Fear of what was happening in Syria did the rest.

And so the Arab Spring has come and gone & Syrians are still killing Syrians. The Arab Spring has come and gone & Egyptians are still killing Egyptians.

Which begs the question: Are violent protests effective in undemocratic countries?

In most western countries, the threat of citizens voting a government out of power at the next general election is often enough to force them to change their policies.

But in the Middle East where elections seldom take place, are violent demonstrations and protests the only weapon that the masses have at their disposal? This may be so, but then surely the accompanying loss of life hardly makes these demonstrations viable.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:30 pm

Massacre. Or was it the soldiers shooting in self defense? I think they did, this is the same thing the "rebels" did in Syria. Soldiers will defend themselves. At the end of this video it states that there was a call for rebellion.

Massacre in Cairo deepens Egypt crisis - YouTube

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:31 pm

I wonder whether the Egyptian Armed Forces will beat the Chilean Armed Forces' game score of 3,000 dead.

If this goes the way of Syria it won't even be a contest.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:11 am

Three minute explanation from a twelve year old.

Egypt : The Next President - YouTube

We didnâ€™t get rid of a military regime to replace it with a fascist theocracy

It's the same issue in Turkey people don't want a theocracy imposed on them, it's not just communists that use the freedoms given by democracy to actively destroy them.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:32 am

gmc;1431362 wrote: It's the same issue in Turkey people don't want a theocracy imposed on them, it's not just communists that use the freedoms given by democracy to actively destroy them.Except, quite simply, it didn't happen. You can claim it would have until you're blue in the face but you've no evidence to support your contention. Had the Egyptian electorate not wanted a swing toward an Islamic-oriented government they'd not have voted in the Muslim Brotherhood, it isn't as though the candidates and manifesto didn't make clear their intention - their entire fifty year history makes clear that they were voted in to do exactly that. What they never did was to ban other parties or cancel future elections.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:05 pm

TÃ½r;1431378 wrote: Except, quite simply, it didn't happen. You can claim it would have until you're blue in the face but you've no evidence to support your contention. Had the Egyptian electorate not wanted a swing toward an Islamic-oriented government they'd not have voted in the Muslim Brotherhood, it isn't as though the candidates and manifesto didn't make clear their intention - their entire fifty year history makes clear that they were voted in to do exactly that. What they never did was to ban other parties or cancel future elections.

There's a world of difference between a swing towards a more Islamic regime and the regime changing the constitution and trying to impose an Islamic state - that was not in their manifesto and they did not "make clear their intention".

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:12 pm

Bryn Mawr;1431384 wrote: There's a world of difference between a swing towards a more Islamic regime and the regime changing the constitution and trying to impose an Islamic state - that was not in their manifesto and they did not "make clear their intention".

As you will. I don't think they did what you accuse them of but we can let that be decided by appropriate quotes later, when they become available.

What's not contentious is that, despite Egypt being a sovereign nation, the fomenting of unrest and the coup targeted at the Muslim Brotherhood was financed by the US. This state interference in the internal affairs of other countries is never-ending and it has to stop. It is tantamount to waging aggressive war.

Here, detail for those who like detail... US Bankrolled Anti-Morsi Activists

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:48 am

TÃ½r;1431385 wrote: As you will. I don't think they did what you accuse them of but we can let that be decided by appropriate quotes later, when they become available.

What's not contentious is that, despite Egypt being a sovereign nation, the fomenting of unrest and the coup targeted at the Muslim Brotherhood was financed by the US. This state interference in the internal affairs of other countries is never-ending and it has to stop. It is tantamount to waging aggressive war.

Here, detail for those who like detail... US Bankrolled Anti-Morsi Activists

Except, quite simply, it didn't happen. You can claim it would have until you're blue in the face but you've no evidence to support your contention.

He did change the constitution to give himself more power and curtail the authority of the constitutional court to overrule him. Those are facts beyond dispute. Ignore them if you wish but that doesn't alter them.

I think you credit the US with more influence over ordinary people in the middle east than they actually have, the unrest is home grown and the American record of supporting democracy in the middle east is not exactly one to be proud of they tend rather to want regimes that will basically do what they want. A secular government in egypt is quite likely to act as a counterbalance to the influence of suadi arabia which country is the main player in all of this.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:18 am

gmc;1431398 wrote: He did change the constitution to give himself more power and curtail the authority of the constitutional court to overrule him. Those are facts beyond dispute. Ignore them if you wish but that doesn't alter them.

I agree with you here entirely, but that's not what you originally claimed.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:39 am

So... The Peepul.

Tomorrow's Friday, and the US-trained Mubarak protÃ©gÃ© in the shiny uniform with all the bogus tin medals whose name I forget - ShiShi, something like that - has called out the scum of the earth to beat up whatever protesters dare show their heads above the parapet. To protect democracy, I expect. If anyone would like me to actually check the papers and report back I'll go and do it but the effect is the same.

They're "the people" still, are they? The ones with police and military backing?

I wonder how many dead protesters they'll clock up.

It baffles me that anyone can regard these neanderthal thugs as representative of public opinion in Egypt.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:11 am

TÃ½r;1431702 wrote: I agree with you here entirely, but that's not what you originally claimed.

?

Posted by me

and then proceeded to amend the constitution granting himself unlimited powers to "protect" the nation in late November 2012,and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts and went on to start creating an Islamic one party state. Do you really need to ask why people were calling for him to resign.

What would you do if you had an avowedly Christian president or state governor who once elected changed the election rules so that potential supporters of opposition parties were disbarred from voting and started imposing laws guided by his own religious beliefs would you consider that cause for concern or would you argue that by voting for such a christian orientated individual they had showed their willingness to accept whatever he then did? Just curious because in america you have exactly that kind of thing going on. If somebody rigs the elections at what point do you consider it legitimate to take to the streets.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 6:24 am

"If somebody rigs the elections"...?

Look, you go and show me an account of how Mr Morsi rigged an election and I might follow your argument. All you're claiming is invented in your head. What you describe didn't ever happen. If you're saying oh it might have if he were left in office, that's damnably tenuous stuff.

Who will be "the people" tomorrow? The ones with the clubs and rifles or the ones protesting against the coup? Because it seems from the thread that we have to support "the people", apparently.

Regarding your quote above, I took exception to "went on to start creating an Islamic one party state". Oh no he didn't. Show me an account of him doing that, too. Focus very carefully on "one party" as you do it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:00 am

TÃ½r;1432347 wrote: "If somebody rigs the elections"...?

Look, you go and show me an account of how Mr Morsi rigged an election and I might follow your argument. All you're claiming is invented in your head. What you describe didn't ever happen. If you're saying oh it might have if he were left in office, that's damnably tenuous stuff.

Who will be "the people" tomorrow? The ones with the clubs and rifles or the ones protesting against the coup? Because it seems from the thread that we have to support "the people", apparently.

Regarding your quote above, I took exception to "went on to start creating an Islamic one party state". Oh no he didn't. Show me an account of him doing that, too. Focus very carefully on "one party" as you do it.

The key phrase is went on to START creating an islamic state. Have a look at some of the changes he was STARTING to make. Why do you think he curbed the powers of judicial oversight? The whole point of judicial oversight os to prevent a political leader having too much power. He didn't get a chance to get very far because people have taken to the streets to stop him.

As to rigging the elections that would probably have come next but in actual fact I was referring to what is happening in america in some of the states where the requirements to register as a voter are being amended to make it harder for people to do so and republican state governments are banning contraceptives and closing family planning clinics because of their religious beliefs. America is your country if you do not know what I refer to I'll leave it at that since it is rather off topic and I wish I hadn't mentioned it.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:28 pm

As i said, you're saying oh it might have if he were left in office.

That's damnably tenuous stuff. We could all play what-if until the cows come home.

Who will be "the people" tomorrow? The ones with the clubs and rifles or the ones protesting against the coup? Because it seems from the thread that we have to support "the people", apparently.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:36 pm

"The People's Flag"

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:07 pm

Bruv;1432392 wrote: "The People's Flag"

"With heads uncovered swear we all

To bare it onward till we fall"?

Either this is a hair display fetish with which I was previously unfamiliar or the revolution will be attempted by members of Proudly Bald.

The Internet overflows with unflushed illiterates. Why must I wade in this detritus. Why, in this instance, should Mr Bragg be traduced by this particular blighted transcriber whose teachers wrongly thought intent counts for more than care.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:55 am

TÃ½r;1432400 wrote: "With heads uncovered swear we all

To bare it onward till we fall"?

Either this is a hair display fetish with which I was previously unfamiliar or the revolution will be attempted by members of Proudly Bald.

The Internet overflows with unflushed illiterates. Why must I wade in this detritus. Why, in this instance, should Mr Bragg be traduced by this particular blighted transcriber whose teachers wrongly thought intent counts for more than care.

Marxism and Music Archive

Because you have them cute waders ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:43 am

TÃ½r;1432383 wrote: As i said, you're saying oh it might have if he were left in office.

That's damnably tenuous stuff. We could all play what-if until the cows come home.

Who will be "the people" tomorrow? The ones with the clubs and rifles or the ones protesting against the coup? Because it seems from the thread that we have to support "the people", apparently.

It's not tenuous at all he was actually doing these things, taking more power, curbing that of the secular courts. Still if you think a fascist theocracy is a good thing that is your prerogative but when it comes right down to it the only way to stop such a thing is to fight it since appeals to reason and tolerance simply will not be listened to. You cannot reason with people who believe their religious faith should be accepted as the truth and dissent made a criminal offence.

Maybe this twelve year old can explain it to you.

12 Year Old Explains Egyptian Revolution in Under 3 Minutes - YouTube

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:10 am

gmc;1432405 wrote: Still if you think a fascist theocracy is a good thing that is your prerogative It's not my decision. It's the decision of the citizens of Egypt. Unfortunately their decision is being pre-empted by foreign subversion by the cash-rich morally bankrupt US government who have bought the corrupt Egyptian Armed Forces for as many peanuts as they demanded.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:52 am

And the week's score so far is into three figures.

I'm a great deal more upset by these deaths than I am by those at the rather more heavily reported train crash in Spain. The train crash was a one-off, it won't happen again next week. It didn't involve a uniformed angel of death ordering his subordinates to back street thugs with weaponry, in order that he can more efficiently loot his country and stash billions of dollars into Swiss accounts to accessorize his obscene afterlife. Why he can't just have a traditional family pyramid built I've no idea.

More than 100 people are reported to have been killed in Cairo at a protest held by supporters of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. Clashes are still taking place around the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque and there is blood on the streets, says the BBC's Quentin Sommerville at the scene. A doctor at a field hospital close to the protest said that in addition to the dead, more than 1,000 were injured.

Army chief Gen Abdel Fattah al-Sisi had urged people to take to the streets to give the military a mandate for its intervention.

BBC News - Egypt crisis: 'Scores killed' at Cairo protest

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:33 am

Man, it's a real mess over there. Apparently someone has been shooting at the soldiers from the crowds. It's the same thing that happened in Syria, and a tactic of radical Muslim organizations. I wish the people the best, that country is a basket case.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:10 am

TÃ½r;1432413 wrote: It's not my decision. It's the decision of the citizens of Egypt. Unfortunately their decision is being pre-empted by foreign subversion by the cash-rich morally bankrupt US government who have bought the corrupt Egyptian Armed Forces for as many peanuts as they demanded.

I think you are wrong there, the US has a record of backing regimes they think they can work with rather than supporting democracy in countries, that's why they supported morsi despite his trying to create an islamic state and why they want assad brought down so are backing islamic insurgents in syria. The ability to think out long term consequences of theior actions doesn't seem to feature much not does the impact on ordinary people. That's why ordinary people in the middle east are fairly hostile to american influence. You can't pretend to support democratic movements in Tunisia and libya and turn a blind eye to oppression in saudi arabia and Bahrain and think people won't notice the hypocrisy. Maybe americans don't but it's a safe bet those in the middle east do.

You talk as if people are unaware of what goes on, they might have been in the past but nowadays we have the internet and mobile phones and people can find out and talk to each other. When it comes to defeating religious fundamentalism sadly history shows sometimes the only way is warfare for the simple reason you can't negotiate with people who believe they are doing god's work. The muslim brotherhood want to create a muslim state - how hard would you fight to prevent fundamentalists taking over in your country?

Worse still the US is taking sides in a sectarian conflict backing sunni against shia, big mistake they should keep out of it altogether and so should the UK and europe. All they are going to do is escalate the violence. He may have been the legitimate elected leader but began to do as he pleased and in a way that contradicted the basis and the origin of that legitimacy. In the US you have the congress. What would Americans do if a president curbed the authority of the supreme court and set out to change electoral rules so his main opponents stood no chance of getting elected. What would your military do? They swear they will uphold the constitution do they not? Your military have been involved in internal political disputes in the past doing just that.

We are just not going to agree on this. I cannot understand why you would want to see an islamic fundamentalist regime in egypt and you can't seem to understand why that would be a bad thing or what morsi was actually doing. Religious leaders have always used their followers to gain power. That will never change doesn't mean they should get away with it.

TÃ½r · Post by **TÃ½r** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:42 am

gmc;1432496 wrote: The muslim brotherhood want to create a muslim state - how hard would you fight to prevent fundamentalists taking over in your country?
That switch in the middle of the question is the key to where we differ in this regard. I might well do a great deal to prevent fundamentalists taking over in my country but I'd do it in my country. This Blairite notion of it being better to do it abroad before it becomes a domestic issue is the core of Nuremberg's definition of War Crime. I have absolutely no justification in subverting a foreign sovereign country for my own domestic benefit.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:55 pm

TÃ½r;1432498 wrote: That switch in the middle of the question is the key to where we differ in this regard. I might well do a great deal to prevent fundamentalists taking over in my country but I'd do it in my country. This Blairite notion of it being better to do it abroad before it becomes a domestic issue is the core of Nuremberg's definition of War Crime. I have absolutely no justification in subverting a foreign sovereign country for my own domestic benefit.

You misunderstand me I think. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the west should keep out of it. The number of times the west has overthrown governments for it's own ends is depressing and sadly it's not just the US that play a part in it.

I happen to think the us is more likely to support morsi than the opposition to him for the simple reason it's harder to deal with a many headed political movement. The army may want to take control but I think it just as likely they were acting to defend the constitution. I was just trying to relate it to the role your own armed forces ostensibly would play in upholding the constitution in the event a president tries to take control.

Blair should be put on trial, at the very least he lied to parliament to get them to support a war that is n ow seen to be as completely unnecessary. Worse he has openly said he did so knowingly because he thought it was the moral thing to do. Our MP's are guilty of self seeking gullibility or just plain stupidity take your pick.