Egypt | Army Ousts Mursi govt, violence erupts | News & Discussions

[Developereo]

You're still in red herring mode. The quote from the article and from my comment was about Jew-hatred, not Israel-hatred.

It is true that the MB contains elements which are against various faiths, but we have to look at specific individuals. Morsi had a checkered past, but he was showing signs of reforming and reaching out to other faiths, in line with his new responsibilities. He reached out to Iran. He assured Israel of continued peace. In fact, he alienated extremists within his own party by "cozying up" too much with Iran and Israel.

The fact is that, like Hamas, whatever other ideas an organization may have, the primary priority for the local electorate is whether they can address their economic and social concerns. The MB was perceived to offer the best option and they were elected to solve Egypt's internal problems, not for their view on Jews or whomever.

Many Western leaders have made disparaging comments about Muslims, but they get elected anyway.

 

[Battle of Kursk]

@Developereo

There was legal recourse -- the military did not have to intervene.

False. The people on the streets do not have control over the house of representatives. Even if every single citizen of Egypt, every one of the 90 millions nation, except the few hundreds representatives, were in the streets there was nothing legal to be done. According to you it is alright to completely ignore the wishes of 99.999999% of the people for 4 years at a time because they are not the few hundreds of representatives?

Of course I accept that democracy is not a blank check but the recourse is not to throw loud tantrums until the guy gets ousted. You can protest and let the supreme court (or appropriate authority) take action.

Your use of the word "tantrum" to describe legitimate concerns of the civilians is pure demagogy, how about we stick to arguments? I have shown supreme court has no power to impeach the president. Actually demonstrating when the actions of the government goes against the will is the true democracy. Democracy is not appointing a despot council for 4 years. In a democracy the moment the ruling class goes against the majority of the people it is automatically looses legitimacy, there is no need to wait 4 years!
Democracy is the rule of the people by the people for the people. not the right to have election every 4 years!

This sends exactly the wrong message to everyone in Egypt and in the region: that, if you don't get your way democratically, then take to the streets.

Ah? peaceful demonstrations are the epitome of exercising democratic rights. Taking to the streets peacefully when the government acts against the wishes of the public is exactly the right message, if you want to practice democracy that is?

Really.

You said that Mubarak family rule was not taken down ultimately by the military, I have shown it is false. As Morsi had legitimacy even though the elections were allowed thanks to the military, so would the next president should the army hold election as promised.

Are you in your senses ? Why would i want a civil war. Next time try not to sound like a retard.

I was trying to sounds like you, re your remark about the USA supporting civil war, to reflects how it appears

I hardly ever laugh out loud over internet remarks, thank you!

 

[T-123456]

Someone needs to bomb Turkey back to the Stone Age

Why not you do it?

 

[Pakistanisage]

I agree with Turkish government position.

 

[Solomon2]

The fact is that, like Hamas, whatever other ideas an organization may have, the primary priority for the local electorate is whether they can address their economic and social concerns. The M-B was perceived to offer the best option -

The M-B proceeded to eviscerate the very institutions and freedoms that enabled them to reach primacy while doing nothing to help lift Egypt out of its economic quagmire; the Egyptian people perceived this and demanded the M-B's removal, before its leaders could rob and starve the country completely and spirit themselves and their ill-gotten gains elsewhere.

It's been explained to me that had this scenario proceeded, Morsi & Co. would still be able to call themselves "good Muslims" because, having gained wealth through political manipulation, they would have achieved "success". Please tell me this is an erroneous analysis and Islam isn't this cynical - or evil.

 

[Developereo]

Democracy is the rule of the people by the people for the people. not the right to have election every 4 years!

We are basically going in circles. I am saying there were proper democratic channels to address this grievance (which you have now attributed to 99.9+% population without evidence).

Is it possible that the popular dissent was not as widespread as claimed? That it was just the usual noisy, albeit large and tech-savvy, minority that always complains when they lose an election?

You said that Mubarak family rule was not taken down ultimately by the military,

No, you said that deposal of Morsi, an elected official, by the military was the same thing as what happened to Mubarak, and I said it wasn't since Mubarak, not having been elected, was not entitled to similar Constitutional protections.

 

[Solomon2]

We are basically going in circles. I am saying there were proper democratic channels to address this grievance

What "proper democratic channels" existed other than mass demonstrations?

I recall the memoirs of one German Army officer, who mused about whether or not to revolt against Hitler in the 1930s. He justified his inaction on the grounds that when it was time to remove the Fuhrer the movement to do so should come from the people, not from the armed forces. Well, that's what the Egyptian military did, right?

 

[Developereo]

The M-B proceeded to eviscerate the very institutions and freedoms that enabled them to reach primacy while doing nothing to help lift Egypt out of its economic quagmire; the Egyptian people perceived this and demanded the M-B's removal, before its leaders could rob and starve the country completely and spirit themselves and their ill-gotten gains elsewhere.

While I accept that Morsi exceeded his authority a few times, he was chastised and his administration was evolving. Egypt has a nascent democracy, so we can't expect perfect behavior out of the box.

As for the allegations of embezzlement, I can't comment until they are verified, but every administration has some amount of corruption, and I doubt it would have been anywhere near the scale of Mubarak.

It's been explained to me that had this scenario proceeded, Morsi & Co. would still be able to call themselves "good Muslims" because, having gained wealth through political manipulation, they would have achieved "success". Please tell me this is an erroneous analysis and Islam isn't this cynical - or evil.

The people who explained it as such to you can best answer that question about their version of Islam. In the Islam I know, theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up.

 

[Developereo]

What "proper democratic channels" existed other than mass demonstrations?

Impeachment by the appropriate authorities (House of Reps?).

If the protesters were truly representative of Egyptian society at large, they could have pressured their local rep to start impeachment proceedings.

If there was mass dissatisfaction with Obama, would you advocate a military coup or impeachment?

 

[Battle of Kursk]

which you have now attributed to 99.9+% population without evidence

I have not, I merely stated that the democratically legal ways you refer to would allow a president to remain in office against the wishes of 99.9999% of the population. Which means they are not enough in every case if you care to uphold the wishes of the people. I did not say that that's the numbers in our case.

I have already agreed that I am not sure what are the exact numbers.

No, you said that deposal of Morsi, an elected official, by the military was the same thing as what happened to Mubarak

Where? i only said that ultimately the method used was the same, the military. Not that the cases were the same. Morsi at his lowest had more legitimacy than Mubarak ever had, due to the elections, I never said anything to the contrary. I did say that in a democracy there are more ways to lose said legitimacy than 1 in 4 years elections.

I agree we are going in circles, we probably understand each other pretty clearly by now, so I see no reason to comment farther on the issue. I will not do so after this post. Feel free to have the last word

 

[iranigirl2]

Afghans shout slogans in support of ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in Kabul, Afghanistan, Friday, July 5, 2013


Morsi supporters protest in Kabul after Friday prayers - Region - World - Ahram Online

 

[Developereo]

I merely stated that the democratically legal ways you refer to would allow a president to remain in office against the wishes of 99.9999% of the population.

I don't think so.

If a sufficiently large percentage of people were opposed, they would pressure their local rep to start impeachment proceedings.

The assumption here is that the entire administration, not just Morsi, was willfully ignoring the wishes of the general population.

 

[Solomon2]

The people who explained it as such to you can best answer that question about their version of Islam. In the Islam I know, theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up.

He's saying that if you can successfully steal from your fellow citizens you become a "good Muslim". I take it that's one of the reasons he takes pride in calling himself a "bad Muslim".

I confess to being perplexed both by my acquaintance's assertions and your qualified response. I assume, however, that the Egyptian masses demonstrating on the street are not confused, nor are the military leaders who are busy locking up and examining the contacts of the M-B leadership even as we write.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Is it mainly because the Army is by and large secular and Morsi was an Islamist and hence inconvenient?

I don't think so.

If a sufficiently large percentage of people were opposed, they would pressure their local rep to start impeachment proceedings.

The assumption here is that the entire administration, not just Morsi, was willfully ignoring the wishes of the general population.

 

[Developereo]

He's saying that if you can successfully steal from your fellow citizens you become a "good Muslim". I take it that's one of the reasons he takes pride in calling himself a "bad Muslim".

Sounds like a sarcastic commentary on self-proclaimed devout Muslim politicians (like Mr. Brocklehurst in Jane Eyre).
By that logic, we have the world's best Muslims in Pakistan.