|
Kaal posted:Name-calling on the Internet is idiotic. Calling Morsi's government a "democracy" is pretty laughable. Painting this as some kind of "good versus evil" dichotomy indicates you've been watching too much Lord of the Rings. What? The people voted, it was a democratically elected government. Definitely the voting process had flaws, introduced both by Morsi and his opposition, and Morsi did have an uncomfortably heavy hand. But a flawed democracy is still a democracy until Morsi either suspended voting or made voting superfluous, neither of which had happened when he was overthrown. And however laughable his government was, the current military regime is less democratically legitimate in every way. Saying that Squalid is setting up a dichotomy is funny, considering they never suggested that Morsi was 'good'. It's just that saying you absolutely abhor the methods of the military, but are totally fine and even happy with the results and feel that in the end it was the right thing to have happen is a really dissociative, cowardly position. The only way for military regimes to suppress the will of the majority is going to involve violence and terror so it's best to acknowledge that's what you're advocating.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
cafel posted:What? The people voted, it was a democratically elected government. Definitely the voting process had flaws, introduced both by Morsi and his opposition, and Morsi did have an uncomfortably heavy hand. But a flawed democracy is still a democracy until Morsi either suspended voting or made voting superfluous, neither of which had happened when he was overthrown. And however laughable his government was, the current military regime is less democratically legitimate in every way. That's not really fair. Morsi criminally misrepresented himself. He spoke of human and women's rights, and unity. Tahrir was firmly in his corner until he showed his true colors through policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rkHUAJrPr8 Yes, it was a democracy, and as I've already said, in hindsight, it would've been better for him to finish out his term. But on a 1 to 10 scale of democratic legitimacy, Morsi and the MB don't edge out Sisi and co by a whole lot. The biggest issue was that at the time of his election, the MB and the military then started making negotiations about the power and influence that the position of Presidency would hold. The democratic process itself was so incomplete that 4 years of Morsi basically instituting MB gerrymandered rules would have likely been fatal to it anyways. I still think the ideal process would have been for the military to remove Morsi without attempting to detain him more than was necessary for his own safety, allowed the constitutional court to rework the democratic process, and then re-held elections with the MB as a party when things were shored up and not so easy to subvert. Sadly, for the military, that option wasn't on the table, evidently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
Chechen jihadists are claiming they've killed a Russian mercenary in Homs, with accompanying letters from a "Slavonic Corps Limited," a Russian, Hong-Kong based (?) military contractor. Russia has previously acknowledged that as many as 400 of its nationals are fighting as mercenaries in Syria. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
I found its website. http://slavcorps.org/en/about quote:
Yep totally not a merc outfit guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Also, can people please stop posting as if I endorse the Egyptian military shooting unarmed protesters? I'm getting a little tired of explaining over and over again that I'm against any violence towards peaceful protesters. You haven't explicitly endorsed the shooting of peaceful protesters, no, but you've endorsed the Egyptian military dictatorship despite the fact that it's shooting peaceful protesters, referring to the current government which is actively massacring minority political groups as "the lesser evil". You may not specifically be cheering them for their actions, but you sure aren't letting the new dictatorship's bad behavior prevent you from thinking of them as heroes who do whatever it takes to keep those mean old religious people out of power. Volkerball posted:That's not really fair. Morsi criminally misrepresented himself. He spoke of human and women's rights, and unity. Tahrir was firmly in his corner until he showed his true colors through policy. There's no way your idea would have worked. The instant an unelected body not accountable to the people claims and exercises the right to step in and removes a democratically-elected government by force, the democracy loses its legitimacy because who's going to guarantee that the next government which does something Sisi dislikes won't meet the same fate? The MB, in particular, would absolutely not tolerate any "solution" that involved throwing Morsi out and redoing elections - they won the elections once only to be unceremoniously kicked out, so why should they even bother trying to pursue a second election victory when the same thing might just happen again? The establishment hasn't exactly been kind to the MB in Egypt, historically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Name-calling on the Internet is idiotic. Calling Morsi's government a "democracy" is pretty laughable. Painting this as some kind of "good versus evil" dichotomy indicates you've been watching too much Lord of the Rings. Things that aren't democratic: When a majority of people elect someone I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no way your idea would have worked. The instant an unelected body not accountable to the people claims and exercises the right to step in and removes a democratically-elected government by force, the democracy loses its legitimacy because who's going to guarantee that the next government which does something Sisi dislikes won't meet the same fate? The MB, in particular, would absolutely not tolerate any "solution" that involved throwing Morsi out and redoing elections - they won the elections once only to be unceremoniously kicked out, so why should they even bother trying to pursue a second election victory when the same thing might just happen again? The establishment hasn't exactly been kind to the MB in Egypt, historically. The Constitutional Court approved of and worked with the military on the decision to oust Morsi, and they are the ones who were granted the power to impeach under Egypt's constitution. A constitution that people voted on. And you're right about the MB, but there's middle ground between allowing them back into the process and expecting things to just go on like nothing happened, and actively rallying the majority to support firing on protesters while imprisoning all their leaders on flimsy pretense. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
People keep ignoring that the reason the military is shooting MB is because they were a risk to their power. If the seculars attempted to dismantle the grip the military has over Egypt's economy the same outcome would probably happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
cafel posted:What? The people voted, it was a democratically elected government. Definitely the voting process had flaws, introduced both by Morsi and his opposition, and Morsi did have an uncomfortably heavy hand. But a flawed democracy is still a democracy until Morsi either suspended voting or made voting superfluous, neither of which had happened when he was overthrown. And however laughable his government was, the current military regime is less democratically legitimate in every way. There's a lot more to a democracy than "people voting". In the election: Half the candidates were disqualified, the vote was conducted prior to the new constitution being drawn and ratified, voter turnout struggled to reach 50 percent, the campaigns were marked with widespread fraud and corruption, and the vote-count was conducted in secret. As a result, a figure who had polled in the single digits in the months ahead of the election was declared the president. After the election: Morsi quickly moved against all of his political rivals, including calling for the arrest of his main electoral opponent. He blatantly ignored the popular calls for moderate government, and instead entrenched his power and pushed for radicalization of the Egyptian constitution. He declared himself beyond the reach of judicial law, and oversaw widespread purging of opposition political groups. When the public protested, he initiated a crackdown with the help of Muslim Brotherhood militias. Then, in the midst of these massive protests, he passed the new Islamic constitution with a supposed 60 percent of the vote. In the meantime, Morsi neglects any of the domestic and economic issues that he had campaigned on. The previously-stable country spirals into months of massive protests, police crackdowns and mob violence, eventually culminating in millions of Egyptians protesting on June 30 and the Army delivering an ultimatum that Morsi either solve his political problems through moderation or step down - Morsi balked and was impeached in a coup. Morsi's government was many things, but one thing it was not was "the people's rule". Characterizing it as such requires deliberate historical revisioning, and is a disservice to the millions and millions of Egyptians who turned out to protest against him and his autocratic policies. He clearly did not have popular legitimacy, and trying to establish that he did in the face of 15-30 million Egyptians taking to the streets seems pretty farcical. It was not a "flawed democracy", it was a "failed democracy", and that's not something to write home about. Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's a lot more to a democracy than "people voting". In the election: Half the candidates were disqualified, the vote was conducted prior to the new constitution being drawn and ratified, voter turnout struggled to reach 50 percent, the campaigns were marked with widespread fraud and corruption, and the vote-count was conducted in secret. As a result, a figure who had polled in the single digits in the months ahead of the election was declared the president. After the election: Morsi quickly moved against all of his political rivals, including calling for the arrest of his main electoral opponent. He blatantly ignored the popular calls for moderate government, and instead entrenched his power and pushed for radicalization of the Egyptian constitution. He declared himself beyond the reach of judicial law, and oversaw widespread purging of opposition political groups. When the public protested, he initiated a crackdown with the help of Muslim Brotherhood militias. Then, in the midst of these massive protests, he passed the new Islamic constitution with a supposed 60 percent of the vote. In the meantime, Morsi neglects any of the domestic and economic issues that he had campaigned on. The previously-stable country spirals into months of massive protests, police crackdowns and mob violence, eventually culminating in millions of Egyptians protesting on June 30 and the Army delivering an ultimatum that Morsi either solve his political problems through moderation or step down - Morsi balked and was impeached in a coup. I think what most people are saying, is that if Morsi was really that bad, a year or two more should have seen his faction decimated in parliamentary elections, A few years after that he would have been soundly voted out of office, with himself and his political allies a laughing stock, and an example in the history books not to be repeated. This is all in an ideal world though, and it wasn't so simple as that. But had people just waited for elections, if Morsi was that unpopular and corrupt, a change in government could have taken place without the military playing a role and shooting a bunch of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Things that aren't democratic: When a majority of people elect someone I don't like. I don't think he's questioning whether or not the actual election that brought Morsi to power was democratic, but how the post-election Morsi government undermined the present and future democracy - authorizing himself sweeping powers and such. When you're attacking people who're protesting (as their democratic right), I think serious questions have to be raised about how you're upholding democracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:I think what most people are saying, is that if Morsi was really that bad, a year or two more should have seen his faction decimated in parliamentary elections, A few years after that he would have been soundly voted out of office, with himself and his political allies a laughing stock, and an example in the history books not to be repeated. This is all in an ideal world though, and it wasn't so simple as that. But had people just waited for elections, if Morsi was that unpopular and corrupt, a change in government could have taken place without the military playing a role and shooting a bunch of people. Even if we assume that Morsi wouldn't just rig the rules and the votes in the next election (pretty unlikely considering he had done just that in the constitutional ratification), there's no indication that Egypt could survive another few years of Morsi rule. The country was falling apart, and the security state was having serious existential problems in the face of widespread governmental opposition. Morsi was leading lynch-mobs of Salafists while the Egyptian military was being tasked with holding back 15 million protesters outside his palace. That's not a situation that can wait for two years just because no one is allowed to say otherwise. A country can't be allowed to fall apart just to satisfy completely arbitrary rules. When he withdrew his candidacy in 2012, El Baradei said that it was a travesty to elect a president before a constitution had been drafted, and he was absolutely right. Without agreed-upon rules to operate by, there was no legitimacy to found anything upon. Everything collapsed because everyone treated it like a game of Calvinball, and no one respected any limits placed upon them. It was a mistake from the beginning, and it's time that Egypt turn back the pages and try again. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Even if we assume that Morsi wouldn't just rig the rules and the votes in the next election (pretty unlikely considering he had done just that in the constitutional ratification), there's no indication that Egypt could survive another two years of Morsi rule. The country was falling apart, and the security state was having serious existential problems in the face of widespread governmental opposition. Morsi was leading lynch-mobs of Salafists while the Egyptian military was being tasked with holding back 15 million protesters outside his palace. That's not a situation that can wait for two years just because no one is allowed to say otherwise. A country can't be allowed to fall apart just to satisfy completely arbitrary rules. The military sure isn't having any problem holding back the protesters now, though! I agree that Egypt's democracy was hardly stable, but Morsi's government wasn't the only one with large amounts of people protesting against it. Since a lot of people are protesting against the current regime, should the military intervene to dethrone al-Sisi and install another government that they think would be good for Egypt (and while we're at it, should the military intervene to overthrow Obama because the Tea Party is protesting his rule and the government is nonfunctional? I think not)? Morsi's reforms may have been undemocratic, but as long as the military remains the self-proclaimed custodian and arbiter of governmental power, no Egyptian government will truly be of the people. No, Morsi was not a perfect paragon of democracy, nor did he have majority support - but neither does the current government, and at least Morsi had checks on his power and a veneer of legitimacy! Besides, and this is pretty important, I don't recall Morsi declaring open season on anyone and everyone who protested against his government. Morsi's government was most definitely not perfect, but I don't see how the new military rule is somehow better, more legitimate, more democratic, or more moral than Morsi's administration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The military sure isn't having any problem holding back the protesters now, though! I agree that Egypt's democracy was hardly stable, but Morsi's government wasn't the only one with large amounts of people protesting against it. Since a lot of people are protesting against the current regime, should the military intervene to dethrone al-Sisi and install another government that they think would be good for Egypt (and while we're at it, should the military intervene to overthrow Obama because the Tea Party is protesting his rule and the government is nonfunctional? I think not)? If tens of millions of Morsi supporters pour out onto the streets for months at a time and the current regime refuses to change policies or incorporate them into its government, then of course the military should intervene. Egypt has a president not an emperor. I doubt that we'll see that happen though. quote:Morsi's reforms may have been undemocratic, but as long as the military remains the self-proclaimed custodian and arbiter of governmental power, no Egyptian government will truly be of the people. No, Morsi was not a perfect paragon of democracy, nor did he have majority support - but neither does the current government, and at least Morsi had checks on his power and a veneer of legitimacy! Besides, and this is pretty important, I don't recall Morsi declaring open season on anyone and everyone who protested against his government. Morsi's government was most definitely not perfect, but I don't see how the new military rule is somehow better, more legitimate, more democratic, or more moral than Morsi's administration. I don't think that a veneer of democracy is worth a drat. A secure and moderate state that is responsive to the will of its people is absolutely worth something though. Morsi put Egypt on a road toward religious oligarchy, and I'm not crying in my cups because he mumped it up. Egypt has returned to the status quo, and I'm hopeful that their next attempt will be more successful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Are you 'crying in your cups' over the military going about that by ruling the MB inherently forbidden from being in politics, gunning people down, and making it pretty clear whatever elections come next will be heavily influenced by the military? I mean if you're allowed to do a military coup on what you assume people will do that's a pretty hosed up system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Are you 'crying in your cups' over the military going about that by ruling the MB inherently forbidden from being in politics, gunning people down, and making it pretty clear whatever elections come next will be heavily influenced by the military? I mean if you're allowed to do a military coup on what you assume people will do that's a pretty hosed up system. A country in the Middle East that is heavily influenced by the military? Well I never  I vote that the next 1300 page thread be entitled The Middle East: Military Influence Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If tens of millions of Morsi supporters pour out onto the streets for months at a time and the current regime refuses to change policies or incorporate them into its government, then of course the military should intervene. Egypt has a president not an emperor. I doubt that we'll see that happen though. The next attempt can't be successful, because now the cards are on the table. The next Egyptian government won't give two shits about the will of the people, they'll be more focused on appealing to the government and appeasing the corrupt officials, because two successive government changes followed by several massacres of protesters as well as mass arrests of a political party have demonstrated who's really in control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
So, although there are certainly moderate, non-authoritarian political elements within Egypt, none of those factions have been able to demonstrate the organizational cohesion or popular support necessary to break into political power. The two factions that have dominated Egypt during the crisis going back to the Arab Spring are coalitions revolving around either the Egyption military or the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the original protests in Tahrir Square set events into motion that caused a change in how the state would be governed on its face, in reality none of the major parties participating in the subsequent reforms were interested in finding a moderate path between their two fundamentally opposed ideologies, let alone instituting democracy. I think the posters that are arguing right now would agree with this assessment, as simplified as it is. So, given that, what is it about the ousted MB faction that makes them preferable to those currently in power? Was there something about Egypt's prospects that was brighter during the days of tension leading up to the coup against Morsi, that was lost after his ouster?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Kaal posted:There's a lot more to a democracy than "people voting". In the election: Half the candidates were disqualified, the vote was conducted prior to the new constitution being drawn and ratified, voter turnout struggled to reach 50 percent, the campaigns were marked with widespread fraud and corruption, and the vote-count was conducted in secret. As a result, a figure who had polled in the single digits in the months ahead of the election was declared the president. After the election: Morsi quickly moved against all of his political rivals, including calling for the arrest of his main electoral opponent. He blatantly ignored the popular calls for moderate government, and instead entrenched his power and pushed for radicalization of the Egyptian constitution. He declared himself beyond the reach of judicial law, and oversaw widespread purging of opposition political groups. When the public protested, he initiated a crackdown with the help of Muslim Brotherhood militias. Then, in the midst of these massive protests, he passed the new Islamic constitution with a supposed 60 percent of the vote. In the meantime, Morsi neglects any of the domestic and economic issues that he had campaigned on. The previously-stable country spirals into months of massive protests, police crackdowns and mob violence, eventually culminating in millions of Egyptians protesting on June 30 and the Army delivering an ultimatum that Morsi either solve his political problems through moderation or step down - Morsi balked and was impeached in a coup. This post is kinda full of bull. Egypt prior to the elections wasn't at all stable, the military disbanded parliament as a parting gift, and the MB never purged opposition parties. The MB were faced by opposition from a corrupt judiciary, secular parties looking for relevance through siding with said judiciary, and most of all the old NDP cadre of businessmen and the police force, both left out to dry by the military after they "handed" power to Morsi. The constitution was a joke though and the MB were fairly inexperienced. I mean, if there's a moral good or evil in this story just look at the political arrests and massacres committed by both military governments and compare it to Morsi. Come on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Ham posted:and most of all the old NDP cadre of businessmen and the police force, both left out to dry by the military after they "handed" power to Morsi. For handing power to Morsi? At the time, it seemed to me like, while the candidates going through rounds of elections was a bit off, Morsi did seem like the popular candidate. That's nice that they are basically condemning democratic elections. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:So, although there are certainly moderate, non-authoritarian political elements within Egypt, none of those factions have been able to demonstrate the organizational cohesion or popular support necessary to break into political power. The two factions that have dominated Egypt during the crisis going back to the Arab Spring are coalitions revolving around either the Egyption military or the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the original protests in Tahrir Square set events into motion that caused a change in how the state would be governed on its face, in reality none of the major parties participating in the subsequent reforms were interested in finding a moderate path between their two fundamentally opposed ideologies, let alone instituting democracy. I think the posters that are arguing right now would agree with this assessment, as simplified as it is. So, given that, what is it about the ousted MB faction that makes them preferable to those currently in power? Religious fundamentalism and military dictatorship aren't fundamentally opposed, and any "moderate path" combining the two of them would have been absolutely horrific. The reason the two didn't get along wasn't because of ideological differences, it's because the military faction was full of Mubarak loyalists and the Muslim Brotherhood had been illegal for the entirety of Mubarak's tenure. Why was the MB preferable to the current leadership? Well, for one thing, the MB wasn't actively massacring protesters, arresting opposition politicians, and suppressing media organizations that don't toe the party line. For another thing, Morsi was elected; even if he wasn't actually the most popular candidate, it still beats appointing himself Morsi's government was flawed in many ways and he went pretty far to consolidate power in his own hands, but the current crackdowns are on a whole different level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Ethiopia decided to construct a power generating dam on their section of the Nile and Morsi threatened them saying Egypt would not tolerate any disruption to the amount of water Egypt gets from it, and then one of his ministers was caught talking on a hot mic about sending special forces in to sabotage it. You know I originally wrote Ethiopia, but changed my mind after glancing at a map. Oops. Here is a story about the resource/energy crisis. Some musical accompaniment in the theme of little green men declaring humans to be in default if we use our superweapons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zryz-kpG5A
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Democratically elected officials do not need to provide universal suffrage or rights. Likewise, non-democratically elected can, but do not need to, provide universal suffrage or rights. Egypt shat this up twice with Morsi loving around too much and the coup going full slaughter on anyone who opposed them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Religious fundamentalism and military dictatorship aren't fundamentally opposed, and any "moderate path" combining the two of them would have been absolutely horrific. The reason the two didn't get along wasn't because of ideological differences, it's because the military faction was full of Mubarak loyalists and the Muslim Brotherhood had been illegal for the entirety of Mubarak's tenure. Is this true? Would there be/is there no major point of ideological dispute between the Military and the MB? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't, but I somehow got the impression from a Frontline documentary that there was a big difference. That may all be down to perception of the media, though. Can you, Main Paineframe, or anyone, elaborate? Of course it's kind of a given that the Sisi government will continue the practice of maintaining the military's substantial hold over the economy via it's patronage networks and property holdings, and that's a difference, but besides that? Are the Military-aligned factions just as socially regressive as the MB?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
I.W.W. ATTITUDE posted:Is this true? Would there be/is there no major point of ideological dispute between the Military and the MB? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't, but I somehow got the impression from a Frontline documentary that there was a big difference. That may all be down to perception of the media, though. Can you, Main Paineframe, or anyone, elaborate? I think he's saying that the concept of a religious fundamentalist government and one dominated by the military aren't mutually exclusive. But honestly I think the NDP's primary ideology is 'we're in charge, we'll stay in charge, gently caress you'. My bet is that the military simply doesn't trust the MB not to pull something, given their longstanding animosity, nor does it trust the MB to be able keep the country from falling apart to the extent were the army stops getting payed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why was the MB preferable to the current leadership? Well, for one thing, the MB wasn't actively massacring protesters, arresting opposition politicians, and suppressing media organizations that don't toe the party line. This is either complete revisionism or a remarkably short memory. Plenty of anti-Morsi protesters were killed by police and Salafist militias, and Morsi actively protected those responsible and in fact led some of the lynch mobs. And when the courts tried to arrest those who were responsible, Morsi closed the investigations and pardoned them all. He arrested as many of the opposition as would stay in the country, and issued warrants for everyone who left, most notably his electoral rival Ahmed Shafik. He purged the existing bureaucracy of anyone who disagreed with him, and banned anyone with ties to the Mubarak government from being elected. And he brutally suppressed the media - filing sedition charges against opposition journalists and pulling issues from shelves. http://rt.com/news/press-crackdown-egypt-mursi-996/ http://rt.com/news/military-deployed-cairo-protest-402/ Here's some choice bits from his "constitutional reforms": quote:All investigations into the killing of protesters or the use of violence against them will be re-conducted; trials of those accused will be re-held. With the declaration a new "protection of the revolution" judicial body was also created to swiftly carry out the prosecutions, but the decree would not lead to retrials of the dozens of lower-level police officers who have been acquitted or received suspended sentences in trials for killing protesters — verdicts that have outraged many Egyptians. That exclusion will guarantee Morsi the loyalty of the powerful but hated police force.[66] Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This is either complete revisionism or a remarkably short memory. Plenty of anti-Morsi protesters were killed by police and Salafist militias, and Morsi actively protected those responsible and in fact led some of the lynch mobs. And when the courts tried to arrest those who were responsible, Morsi closed the investigations and pardoned them all. He arrested as many of the opposition as would stay in the country, and issued warrants for everyone who left, most notably his electoral rival Ahmed Shafik. He purged the existing bureaucracy of anyone who disagreed with him, and banned anyone with ties to the Mubarak government from being elected. And he brutally suppressed the media - filing sedition charges against opposition journalists and pulling issues from shelves. Morsi-led lynch mobs? Brutal suppression of media? Arrested opposition people? Asidd from the constitutional changes, you're talking out of your rear end. The "journalists" tried and convicted by the MB-appointed DA were 3 islamic TV hosts. 2 for burning a bible on air, 1 for falsifying libelous images of a liberal actress. They all got jail sentences. This also comes nowhere close to the military's media crackdown which since day one has been "arrest any MB-leaning media personell, confiscate their assets, and tightly control the anti-MB media to the extent of setting a universal media policy and arbitrating broadcast content. That's your "brutal" suppression of the media. Also, Ahmed Shafik ran off to the UAE once he lost because he knew the charges filed against him as a Mubarak era high official would eventually catch upto him. His only hope was winning the election. Ham fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Ham posted:Morsi-led lynch mobs? I don't think that you can call thousands of Muslim Brotherhood Salifists pulling five Shia Muslims from their house, killing them and dragging them through the streets anything else than a lynch mob.  http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/06/24/310617/prominent-shia-sheikh-killed-in-egypt/ I'm not going to address the rest of your points because "those people deserved it" doesn't really seem like adequate equivocation, nor is it a particularly compelling point in Morsi's favor. Kaal fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't think that you can call thousands of Muslim Brotherhood Salifists pulling five Shia Muslims from their house, killing them and dragging them through the streets anything else than a lynch mob. I think the rest of his points had more to do with the vast difference in scale between Morsi's offenses and the militaries offenses then whether anyone deserved anything they got. Morsi persecuted certain media figures that crossed him, the military dismantled entire broadcast outlets. Morsi moved to consolidate political power for his party and edge out and marginalize rivals, the military banned an entire opposing political party and arrested most of the party leaders and organizers. Cases of sectarian violence being met with tacit condonement versus direct orders to machine gun hundreds of peaceful protesters in the streets. There's a difference in the proportionality that's disingenuous to ignore. I find Republican efforts to suppress minority voters immoral and a threat to the fabric of American democracy, but arresting their party leaders and killing their supporters in the streets would be more immoral and a much bigger blow to the democratic process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 09:17
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I don't think that you can call thousands of Muslim Brotherhood Salifists pulling five Shia Muslims from their house, killing them and dragging them through the streets anything else than a lynch mob. Lynch mobs, yes. I'm not seeing anything that indicates they were Morsi-led however. These look more like al-Nour Salafis. 15 people were charged, and at least 5 were arrested within a week of the attack. Ahram didn't have much to say on it. quote:The murders have been denounced from across the political and religious spectrum. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/74890/Egypt/Politics-/Five-arrested-over-Shia-murders-in-Egypt.aspx The only condemnation of Morsi I can find is from a group called the Shia Rights Watch (through a news site I've never heard of named Ahlul Bayt), who said quote:SRW had previously warned the Egyptian authorities about violations towards Shia Muslims in Egypt. Shia rights violation escalated especially after president Mursi took office in 2012. President Mursi has supported hatred languages and activities against Shia minority and his support lead to harassment, human rights violations, oppression and now assassination of Sheikh Hassan Shehata and three more. http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=433434 However, on SRW's website, they have a counter of all the Shia's who have been murdered this year (with questionable methodology. I can think of 300+ shias killed in 2 massacres alone just in Latakia, not to mention how many have been killed in Syria by other means).  Which implies that was literally the only attack on Shia's during the most turbulent time of Morsi's presidency. So with all that being said, I think "Morsi led lynch mobs" seems a bit unfair. Also, I found this story on BBC, Ahram, and a couple other sites. You should do some more cross-referencing next time, because if I didn't know you, I would have completely disregarded all your posts once I saw PressTV and RT links. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:So with all that being said, I think "Morsi led lynch mobs" seems a bit unfair. Also, I found this story on BBC, Ahram, and a couple other sites. You should do some more cross-referencing next time, because if I didn't know you, I would have completely disregarded all your posts once I saw PressTV and RT links. It probably is rather unfair, but certainly Morsi aligned himself with the al-Nour Salifists, headlined rallies where clerics promoted violence against Shias, and said nothing to pacify the crowds. If a GOP President invited the KKK to speak at his anniversary rally, and then they killed four black Baptists a week later, I don't think that it'd be a stretch to say that he'd have a responsibility in that. Nor indeed was this the only event where anti-Morsi citizens were killed - the protests were massive and so it was a fairly common event. Similarly, I'm sure that the other sites have much better coverage, but they also don't have graphic footage. Maybe that's not fair to lead with it, but I'm really not liking to see this kind of whitewashing. The military crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood was brutal, but that doesn't void the months of protests and unrest that led up to it. This portrayal of a peaceful Morsi regime that only operated inside the rules seems a complete invention to me and puts a lie to widespread Egyptian opinion. On the other hand, I don't think that comparing tragedies and abuses is really taking this thread anywhere, so I'll rest my case. Kaal fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
Kaal posted:It probably is rather unfair, but certainly Morsi aligned himself with the al-Nour Salifists, headlined rallies where clerics promoted violence against Shias, and said nothing to pacify the crowds. If a GOP President invited the KKK to speak at his anniversary rally, and then they killed four black Baptists a week later, I don't think that it'd be a stretch to say that they'd have a responsibility in that. I agree with that. quote:Similarly, I'm sure that the other sites have much better coverage, but they also don't have graphic footage. Maybe that's not fair to lead with it, but I'm really not liking to see this kind of whitewashing. The military crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood was brutal, but that doesn't void the months of protests and unrest that led up to it. I don't think anyone is really whitewashing anything or claiming the bolded section. Ham I know was anti-Morsi, but rightly didn't think the military taking over was the proper course of action to end his Presidency. I think we're all in the same boat (aside from Mr. 48) in believing that the MB was about as bad a political group in power you can possibly have that isn't actively drawing support from their base to dismantle protests with brutal force. The military took that a step further though, and they deserve more condemnation for that. It seems we're all arguing about the ratio of condemnation that should be spread between the MB and the military, not whether or not one group didn't deserve any condemnation at all. Which is kind of a silly thing to be discussed now that I see it typed out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
Prime Minister of Egypt gave an interesting interview to a satellite network.quote:Interim Prime Minister Hazem El-Beblawi says there are indications that Egypt is "on the right track," asserting that improvements are evident in terms of security, politics, and economy. Well I wasn't doubting that the military exerted a huge effort.  They've already missed some deadlines that were in the initial roadmap IIRC, but at least it seems they intend to follow through with it. So it seems this is basically going to be Mubarak's regime with a new President and "elections" every 4 years, with the military receiving unilateral veto power. People are investing though, so maybe this thing has bottomed out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
John Kerry in Paris right now taking questions from the press and one question asked about Assad seeking re election. Kerry stated plainly that peace will not come to Syria if Assad remains in any official capacity in the Syrian government. This is part of a meeting with Kerry and the Qatari Foreign Minister taking place in Paris.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Just spent my first full day at Google Idea's Conflict in a Connected World summit. During the events they launched a few new products, including the DDoS visulisation site Digital Attack Map, and the DDoS mitigation project, Project Shield. My favourite though was uProxy, a simple, browser to browser proxy. It effectively means that users in Iran (for example) can bypass web censorship using a secure proxy linked directly to another persons browser (based outside Iran) with a couple of mouseclicks. As you can imagine, that's a pretty big deal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ6BuHL0EiQ quote:Google Sends a Lifeline to Internet Users in Iran and China
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
quote:A brigade of former rebels in the Libyan city of Benghazi has detained several people they say carried out recent car bombings in the city. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24628192
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
So a few days after one of the SAA's top generals was killed, Jameh Jameh, the rebels lost one of the first generals to defect to their side during the war, Yaser Abboud. As of today, the rebels also rejected the Geneva II conference talks based on the precondition of Assad leaving office before then. Based on Assad's stated desire to cling onto the presidency, doesn't seem like any negotiations will happen for years now. It's sad to think that this all started a little over two and half years ago, we're still no closer to even the barest ceasefire on the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Saudi Arabia is making noises about moving away from the US politically. They are apparently unhappy that we didn't bomb Syria, are engaging Iran, and are ignoring the Palestinians. I don't know if this will end up meaning anything, but this seems a continuation of their rejection of the UN Security Council seat last week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
You know if we piss off the Saudies and the Israeies with the same not-bombing-people action I think that literally means it objectively a good action. Edit: My grammar and spelling is atrochous today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Saudi Arabia is making noises about moving away from the US politically. They are apparently unhappy that we didn't bomb Syria, are engaging Iran, and are ignoring the Palestinians. I don't know if this will end up meaning anything, but this seems a continuation of their rejection of the UN Security Council seat last week. I doubt the US would be bothered, they keep pretending that they don't know Saudi Arabia is Al Qaeda: The Country. The vast majority of the funding that Jihadis are receiving comes from Saudi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 20:22
|
|
