Egypt

[Fragony]

Only total idiots believed this was an Arab-spring. Leftist intellectualoco's, wrong as usual. No you pipesmoking beardrubbers who know, for a fact, that the muslim brotherhood is moderate. The muslim-brotherhood isn't all that moderate, yes they are indeed pretty extreme, who would have thought. Army is kinda fed up with Morsi and threatens to take things over, and I think they are pretty serious about it. Arab spring, lol, back to normal. Much better. Shoot the rape-squads first for me please. Take your country back from this monster, good luck and greets from the Netherlands mia muca's

[Fragony]

They sound pretty serious to me, they are ready to 'sacrifice their blood'. Quite a statement Morsi is done for, army is like a sword of Domaclus for any Egyptian ruler, they are the real power and they are very fed up with things if they put it like that. Good news for the normal Egyptians who only want to to have to worry about what's for dinner. Go army.

Oh and EU who was funding the muslim brotherhood, screw you

[Fragony]

Last time I checked, average Egyptians were still outraged that the Army had yet to meet many of the peoples' demands for reparations in regards to torture, illegal detention, that sort of thing.

Egypt is kinda behind on a whole lot more, having an islamist government kinda beats having to worry about that. It will still not be very nice but but this Morsi is worse. Complete idiot with a religion to boot

[Rhyfelwyr]

There seems to be something of a pattern emerging in these Middle-Eastern conflicts. On the one hand you have this secular regime/ex-regime and its backers in the army with a big history of all sort of human right abuses, and that was propped up by the US or various colonial powers. Then on the other hand you have what was traditionally the opposition, which tends to express its grievances in Islamist terms. I think these trends can be seem in Turkey, Syria and Egypt.

I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about what the army is doing here. I think power-sharing would be the best option to bring some stability, hopefully with Morsi seeing out his term. He was democratically elected after all - I hardly think that the West backing a secular military in a coup against an elected ruler is the best option.

I realise there is the conflict between the fact he is democratically elected, and the reality that some of his more religious-based policies are not in the spirit of a liberal democracy. But Egypt evidently still has a very socially conservative majority, and that's something we have to appreciate. Like I said in the Turkey and Iran threads - these young, secular, Westernised types might be very vocal since they have access to social media etc, but at the end of the day they are a small minority that are hardly representative of their societies. The goat-herders have to have a voice as well, or else they will look for one through other means.

[rvg]

So, looks like MoMo's presidency is done for.

*plays the world's smallest violin*

[Lemur]

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Anybody who thinks they know where a revolution is going—much less where it will end up—is a fool.

-edit-

Here's a pretty good liveblog (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/latest-updates-on-egypts-political-crisis-2/) for those who have the interest and time.

[The Stranger]

Only total idiots believed this was an Arab-spring. Leftist intellectualoco's, wrong as usual. No you pipesmoking beardrubbers who know, for a fact, that the muslim brotherhood is moderate. The muslim-brotherhood isn't all that moderate, yes they are indeed pretty extreme, who would have thought. Army is kinda fed up with Morsi and threatens to take things over, and I think they are pretty serious about it. Arab spring, lol, back to normal. Much better. Shoot the rape-squads first for me please. Take your country back from this monster, good luck and greets from the Netherlands mia muca's

Tell us all-knowing, all-wise, Frag the Omniscient, tell us!

[Major Robert Dump]

yay for more gang rapes

[HoreTore]

Wow, what a shocker - Fragony has completely misunderstood why those intellectuals called it the Arab spring.

The revolution has begun eating its first children. Can't say I object to it, but hopefully they'll stop before they go completely France.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's happened. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23173794)

"The army is currently involved in a show of force, fanning out across Cairo and taking control of the capital, BBC correspondent Quentin Sommerville reports.

He described seeing eight armoured personnel carriers heading for Cairo University in Giza, where one of the main pro-Morsi demonstrations was being held."

EDIT:

Far too early days to know exactly what happened, but I think this is the last thing Egypt needs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23161075

"Clashes broke out at rival protests across Egypt on Tuesday night, with at least 16 pro-Morsi protesters killed at a demonstration at Cairo University."

Cairo University being where the above article just said the army were headed. If all the dead are indeed on one side, that looks more like an atrocity than a combat situation.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Army has played it's cards very well an Morsi has played them badly, they can now safely remove him to pick a new leader like they did before with Morsi himself. (yes he won an election but only because he was allowed to)

The Army has always being the main force and any attempt to play silly buggers with them will fail.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As always it will be interesting to see how this develops because there is absolutely no reason for any outsiders to get involved.........right​?

[gaelic cowboy]

As always it will be interesting to see how this develops because there is absolutely no reason for any outsiders to get involved.........right​?


no there is no need it will be all over by the morning.

the interim government will declare fresh elections and the muslim brotherhood even if it wins will not cross the Army again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

no there is no need it will be all over by the morning.

the interim government will declare fresh elections and the muslim brotherhood even if it wins will not cross the Army again.

Revolutions don't end suddenly. There is a long process of compromise and democracy or a long process of extermination.

[gaelic cowboy]

Revolutions don't end suddenly. There is a long process of compromise and democracy or a long process of extermination.


there was no revolution in eygpt all that happened was the army deposed a useless administrator

[a completely inoffensive name]

there was no revolution in eygpt all that happened was the army deposed a useless administrator

Bit more complex than that, you have to admit.

[Montmorency]

Bit more complex than that, you have to admit.

Wonder what Erdogan makes of all this.

And Thein Sein...

[Rhyfelwyr]

As one commentator pointed out, this may well lead to reprisals from the hardline Islamists. So we might just go back to the situation under Muburak, where a secular military-backed regime is in constant conflict with radical Jihadis, and the majority of Egyptian people feel unrepresented.

[gaelic cowboy]

As one commentator pointed out, this may well lead to reprisals from the hardline Islamists. So we might just go back to the situation under Muburak, where a secular military-backed regime is in constant conflict with radical Jihadis, and the majority of Egyptian people feel unrepresented.


an that will be fine with the army as they can claim to be defending eygpt.

If the brothers win the second election the army can still claim credit for forcing them to listen to the "people"

It's always been about the Army it has never been about secular versus islamist

[Rhyfelwyr]

an that will be fine with the army as they can claim to be defending eygpt.

If the brothers win the second election the army can still claim credit for forcing them to listen to the "people"

Right, but I'm speaking out of concern for the Egyptian people, not the interests of the Army. I'm saying that what is happening is not ideal. I'm not saying that it is not a reality.


It's always been about the Army it has never been about secular versus islamist

I think it is precisely because a secular military dominates the scene that the opposition expresses itself in Islamist terms.

Consider this - already in the Syria thread many are saying that it is our failure to bolster a secular Free Syrian Army that has led to the Jihadis becoming the main voice of opposition and taking control of the Rebel cause. I do not want to see a repeat of this trend in Egypt.*

* Not that I am advocating intervention either. I simply hope that a situation is not created where people have to turn to the radicals to get a voice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm a bit more optimistic that that - the army needs to play it's hand gently.

The Generals can stay in place, be heroes of the people, or they can play silly buggers with the people. They've seen how that worked out in Libya, and how it's worked out on Syria.

Not especially well.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm a bit more optimistic that that - the army needs to play it's hand gently.

The Generals can stay in place, be heroes of the people, or they can play silly buggers with the people. They've seen how that worked out in Libya, and how it's worked out on Syria.

Not especially well.

The army has and is playing it gently and there playing it very well.

The real reason Morsi is gone is because he has failed in his duty to provide civilian legitmacy to the generals. (the real power in eygpt)

[Montmorency]

I think it is precisely because a secular military dominates the scene that the opposition expresses itself in Islamist terms.


I think that it's simply the character of the populations in those areas. Without a specially-advantaged secular opposition, all prospective representatives would be Islamists - they just wouldn't specially advertise themselves as such. Though I do suppose that without "a specially-advantaged secular opposition, the region just might get past its excessive religiosity more quickly and naturally than otherwise?

[gaelic cowboy]

I think it is precisely because a secular military dominates the scene that the opposition expresses itself in Islamist terms.

The Army felt it could deal with Morsi but all he has done is make things worse on all fronts, essentially the Army has adopted the secular protest movement to remove Morsi. That does not mean the army wont deal with the Brotherhood again, I suspect Morsi's mates are chomping at the bit to seat themselves in his presidential mercedes.



Consider this - already in the Syria thread many are saying that it is our failure to bolster a secular Free Syrian Army that has led to the Jihadis becoming the main voice of opposition and taking control of the Rebel cause. I do not want to see a repeat of this trend in Egypt.*

* Not that I am advocating intervention either. I simply hope that a situation is not created where people have to turn to the radicals to get a voice.

the only thing linking eygpt an syria is the fact there two muslim countries

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think that it's simply the character of the populations in those areas. Without a specially-advantaged secular opposition, all prospective representatives would be Islamists - they just wouldn't specially advertise themselves as such. Though I do suppose that without "a specially-advantaged secular opposition, the region just might get past its excessive religiosity more quickly and naturally than otherwise?

I think there is a world of difference between socially conservative Islam on the one hand, and the radical ideology of global Islamism on the other. I think without the secular opposition, parties might have shared some socially conservative policies, but there would be no reason for any to adopt radical Islamist policies. But because of the oppression of a secular regime over the past few decades, many moderate Muslims have turned to the radicals as their outlet for expressing their grievances.

The army kicking Morsi out when he was fairly elected is only going to exacerbate this.

[Montmorency]

I think there is a world of difference between socially conservative Islam on the one hand, and the radical ideology of global Islamism on the other.

Well, by Islamism we don't necessarily mean 'fundamentalism' or 'Salafism' or anything like that.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think there is a world of difference between socially conservative Islam on the one hand, and the radical ideology of global Islamism on the other. I think without the secular opposition, parties might have shared some socially conservative policies, but there would be no reason for any to adopt radical Islamist policies. But because of the oppression of a secular regime over the past few decades, many moderate Muslims have turned to the radicals as their outlet for expressing their grievances.

The army kicking Morsi out when he was fairly elected is only going to exacerbate this.

that may be so but when he rammed the constitution through that time he was walking on thin ice from that day on.

If he had turned the economy round and if he hadnt picked social issues as his big thing he might still be president.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Army felt it could deal with Morsi but all he has done is make things worse on all fronts, essentially the Army has adopted the secular protest movement to remove Morsi. That does not mean the army wont deal with the Brotherhood again, I suspect Morsi's mates are chomping at the bit to seat themselves in his presidential mercedes.

Perhaps, but I was pointing out the historic relationship between Islamism and opposition to the Army.


the only thing linking eygpt an syria is the fact there two muslim countries

I think that's a pretty bold statement to make.

Let's not forget, Egypt and Syria were a few decades ago one nation as the United Arab Republic, which is still actually the official name for Egypt today.

Besides being two Arab, Sunni-majority countries in the Middle-East, they have both very recently undergone revolutions where oppressive regimes lasting decades have been cast out. They both have strong secular militaries with a history of oppressing their people. They both have an Islamist-dominated opposition movement. They both have ethnic/religious minorities that back the old secular order for their safety but have since been scapegoated for it amid the turmoil. They are both ex-colonies with strong Ba'athist and socialist traditions.

Surely they have a lot in common?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, by Islamism we don't necessarily mean 'fundamentalism' or 'Salafism' or anything like that.

Maybe not, but I think Islamism does suggest a very politically-aggressive sort of Islam. I think the average Muslim would just want a few backwards policies. Just to make sure nobody frightens the horses sort of thing. It becomes Islamist when it gets really pervasive, when it is less about social norms and more about ideology.

EDIT: I have another reply at the end of the last page, just in case it was missed.

[HoreTore]

I think that it's simply the character of the populations in those areas. Without a specially-advantaged secular opposition, all prospective representatives would be Islamists - they just wouldn't specially advertise themselves as such.

Wow.

In just two sentences, you managed to ignore the zillion different communist, socialist and nationalist political groups or revolutionaries who dominated the post-WW2 years. And such groups succeeded in gaining power in plenty of countries in that region. The baathists, the communists in Iran, the PKK, Gaffy and so on and so on. None of them religious, never mind islamist. Few of them had much outside support or special advantages. Indeed, seeing as many of them were each others mortal enemies, you could say they were heavily disadvantaged. The revolution in Iran was the first time a group like the commies(who were anti-religious hardliners) failed to gain control of a revolution in "that region". Heck, even the Shah in Afghanistan faced largely atheist opposition.

You could claim it's the times, but no way can you make the claim that it's the region.

[Montmorency]

In just two sentences, you managed to ignore the zillion different communist, socialist and nationalist political groups or revolutionaries who dominated the post-WW2 years.

It would not be very sensible to include these groups, as these are no longer the post-WW2 years, and there are certainly no longer many "anti-religious", let alone Communist, types.

But yes, I could say "the contemporary character of the people in question". :shakehands:

[gaelic cowboy]

Perhaps, but I was pointing out the historic relationship between Islamism and opposition to the Army.



I think that's a pretty bold statement to make.

Let's not forget, Egypt and Syria were a few decades ago one nation as the United Arab Republic, which is still actually the official name for Egypt today.

Besides being two Arab, Sunni-majority countries in the Middle-East, they have both very recently undergone revolutions where oppressive regimes lasting decades have been cast out. They both have strong secular militaries with a history of oppressing their people. They both have an Islamist-dominated opposition movement. They both have ethnic/religious minorities that back the old secular order for their safety but have since been scapegoated for it amid the turmoil. They are both ex-colonies with strong Ba'athist and socialist traditions.

Surely they have a lot in common?

they way I read it was that you meant both revolutions were similar, ie it was outside support that toppled mubarak and that ouside support is needed in syria. superficially if you take this as secular millitary against islamist opposition yes it the same, but i see it as secular millitary getting annoyed that Morsi cannot keep the non-millitary opposition secularists and copts happy.

He is being removed because there is significant opposition to him, in syria removal of assad would mean removal of the millitary

basically one was/is a country that matters ie eygpt the other is a basket case that's esentially a client of Iran

in eygpt it was the army that removed mubarak, in syria the army is assad.

the christian community is ten percent of the population in both countries but in eygpt they have a pope

there is a major centre of islamic learning in eygpt and apparently there backing the coup

[Rhyfelwyr]

they way I read it was that you meant both revolutions were similar, ie it was outside support that toppled mubarak and that ouside support is needed in syria. superficially if you take this as secular millitary against islamist opposition yes it the same, but i see it as secular millitary getting annoyed that Morsi cannot keep the non-millitary opposition secularists and copts happy.

He is being removed because there is significant opposition to him, in syria removal of assad would mean removal of the millitary

basically one was/is a country that matters ie eygpt the other is a basket case that's esentially a client of Iran

in eygpt it was the army that removed mubarak, in syria the army is assad.

the christian community is ten percent of the population in both countries but in eygpt they have a pope

there is a major centre of islamic learning in eygpt and apparently there backing the coup

OK, well I only mentioned outside support in passing, and indeed I specifically said I did not advocate it.

My point was there are some similarities, of course you are right that they have their differences as well.

Those are interesting points you raise about the Islamic centre supporting the coup and the fact that unlike in Syria, Egypt's army removed the dictator - these facts do challenge the narrative I have presented.

With that in mind I'll sit back and watch how things develop, hopefully with the things you have mentioned it won't go the way of Syria.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wonder what Erdogan makes of all this.

And Thein Sein...

YOu would know better than me it seems.

[Fragony]

Tell us all-knowing, all-wise, Frag the Omniscient, tell us!

Tada

[Fragony]

Wow, what a shocker - Fragony has completely misunderstood why those intellectuals called it the arab spring.

Nah, I perfectly understand that they are total idiots who will never understand that they just don't get it. Now that they were once again wrong, wrong as usual, absolute silence.

[Sarmatian]

I always support talking power from anything that has religious adjectives in the name. I'll take a secular dictator over a fundamentalist one any day.

So, I'm rooting for the army. Additionally, this may give Erdogan pause, maybe he'll be wary of his generals getting the same idea.

[The Stranger]

Nah, I perfectly understand that they are total idiots who will never understand that they just don't get it. Now that they were once again wrong, wrong as usual, absolute silence.

i wonder who you mean... are there any of them in this thread?

[The Stranger]

I always support talking power from anything that has religious adjectives in the name. I'll take a secular dictator over a fundamentalist one any day.

So, I'm rooting for the army. Additionally, this may give Erdogan pause, maybe he'll be wary of his generals getting the same idea.

What does fundamentalism even mean in this statement? Why is a ideology with a god worse than one without? Because thats about the only principal difference.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nah, I perfectly understand that they are total idiots who will never understand that they just don't get it. Now that they were once again wrong, wrong as usual, absolute silence.

Oh wise Fragony-san, you enrage me so much on so many matters, but I am always impressed by your ability to take a terrible situation and so quickly cut it down to a consistent philosophy of "That's islam for you."

[Sarmatian]

What does fundamentalism even mean in this statement? Why is a ideology with a god worse than one without? Because thats about the only principal difference.

It's easier to deal with secular dictators as they tend to be practical. Religious fanatics tend to behave... well, like religious fanatics.

[Fragony]

Oh wise Fragony-san, you enrage me so much on so many matters, but I am always impressed by your ability to take a terrible situation and so quickly cut it down to a consistent philosophy of "That's islam for you."

Islamism isn't islam, A difference I don't mind making. You just can't read very well if you missed me making it

[The Stranger]

It's easier to deal with secular dictators as they tend to be practical. Religious fanatics tend to behave... well, like religious fanatics.

i doubt that, but your point is understandable.

even though I dont see why a secular dictator ala Hitler, Mao, Stalin or whatever ideology inspired dictator would be preferable to one who is inspired by a religious ideology. perhaps if by secular you mean one who is only inspired by greed, i can see concede the point.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Islamism isn't islam, A difference I don't mind making. You just can't read very well if you missed me making it

I went to a US public school. I can't read what I am typing right now. I am pretty sure I incorrectly comprehend everyone on here. But I will keep what you said in mind for the future.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Arrest warrants for 300 Muslim Brotherhood members issued by Army (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/04/egypt-military-arrest-warrants-muslim-brotherhood)

Again, this seems like a worrying development.

[Fisherking]

Yes, well, so is this: http://www.thetower.org/german-intelligence-egypt-now-worlds-main-jihadist-training-ground/

However, so far as I know, no harm has come to any of them. The only reported violence has come from the MB in shooting anti-Morsi protesters.

It does not look as though it will turn in to the reign of terror just yet.

[HoreTore]

Nah, I perfectly understand that they are total idiots who will never understand that they just don't get it. Now that they were once again wrong, wrong as usual, absolute silence.

No, as the term was coined because it was the first (serious attempt to) overthrow of a particular batch of dictators who had ruled nearly unopposed for half a century. That is the significance of the Arab spring, it changed the rules. Now an Arab dictator can be overthrown. Just like the French revolution isn't important because it brought about "Freedom for EveryoneTM"(it most certainly didn't), but because it changed the rules by showing that a population can overthrow and chop the heads off of Kings.

It is truly unsurprising that such insights are lost on you.

[Fragony]

No, as the term was coined because it was the first (serious attempt to) overthrow of a particular batch of dictators who had ruled nearly unopposed for half a century. That is the significance of the Arab spring, it changed the rules. Now an Arab dictator can be overthrown. Just like the French revolution isn't important because it brought about "Freedom for EveryoneTM"(it most certainly didn't), but because it changed the rules by showing that a population can overthrow and chop the heads off of Kings.

It is truly unsurprising that such insights are lost on you.

I get what it meant but it's kinda off in reality no?

[HoreTore]

I get what it meant but it's kinda off in reality no?

What?

Have not a bunch of dictators been overthrown, in the process of being overthrown or had to fight back a major attempt to overthrow him, by an opposition made up of mostly the common man(as opposed to being overthrown by rival power structures within the regime or outside agents, as has been the norm)?

Will not future dictators be aware of this, and take it into consideration, like the European monarchs did after the revolution?

The Arab spring changed the playing field in the Middle East. It was a momentous event for the region. The intellectuals were spot on, as they always are. The right-wingers are still as clueless as always.

[HopAlongBunny]

I am impressed that the "Arab Spring" has at least (so far) avoided the following "Reign of Terror".
It upsets my understanding of the dynamics of revolution...but I can live with that :2thumbsup:

[Fisherking]

I am impressed that the "Arab Spring" has at least (so far) avoided the following "Reign of Terror".
It upsets my understanding of the dynamics of revolution...but I can live with that :2thumbsup:

There have been some assignations and murders in Tunisia. Libya is still unsettled but Egypt was the mildest.

Even the American Revolution had retribution to a stronger degree. Many had to flee their homes and had property confiscated. All Indians were lumped together as enemies even though there were tribes fighting along with the Americans. In more recent months the government has gone after political opponents and counter demonstrators have killed protesters but overall there has been comparatively little blood shed.

[lars573]

I am impressed that the "Arab Spring" has at least (so far) avoided the following "Reign of Terror".
It upsets my understanding of the dynamics of revolution...but I can live with that :2thumbsup:
You should take a closer look at the time line of the French revolution. The Terror didn't start for 4 years after the revolution started. Give it 2 years.

[Major Robert Dump]

This is only happening because they want july 4th as a special holiday because everyone copies America and look up to usa, other countries take our language and they try to take paris Hilton and now they take july 4, too

[HoreTore]

This is only happening because they want july 4th as a special holiday because everyone copies America and look up to usa, other countries take our language and they try to take paris Hilton and now they take july 4, too

You can keep Paris Hilton, but I demand Rihanna.

[Fragony]

What?

Have not a bunch of dictators been overthrown, in the process of being overthrown or had to fight back a major attempt to overthrow him, by an opposition made up of mostly the common man(as opposed to being overthrown by rival power structures within the regime or outside agents, as has been the norm)?

Will not future dictators be aware of this, and take it into consideration, like the European monarchs did after the revolution?

The Arab spring changed the playing field in the Middle East. It was a momentous event for the region. The intellectuals were spot on, as they always are. The right-wingers are still as clueless as always.

Things only turned for the worse, army taking over in Egypt is good news for the Egyptians, it's really the only positive thing worth mentioning about this 'arab spring', at least in Egypt it won't be an islamist winter. I hope the people in Syria will be just as lucky but I doubt it. Libya is a nightmare as well. Things were much better before all this happened.

[HoreTore]

Things only turned for the worse

....And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the term "Arab Spring".

The French revolution "only made things worse" as well. Its impact, on the other hand, allowed democracy in Europe.

[Fragony]

....And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the term "Arab Spring".

The French revolution "only made things worse" as well. Its impact, on the other hand, allowed democracy in Europe.

Facepalm du jour, democracy isn't exactly what they have in mind, you must be reading quality newspapers. Islamists are taking over the region and ill-informed whiteboys are cheering for them.

[HoreTore]

Facepalm du jour, democracy isn't exactly what they have in mind, you must be reading quality newspapers. Islamists are taking over the region and ill-informed whiteboys are cheering for them.

And Napoleon made himself Emperor and started conquering.

Your point?

The Arab spring has shown that the population of Arab countries are capable of overthrowing its rulers. That's the significance of the Arab spring. A factor like that may lead to more democratic societies, but it doesn't have to. The revolutions in Europe gave us everything from democracies to totalitarian states, noone is claiming that the same isn't true for the middle east.

Except the strawmen made by right-wingers, of course.

[Fragony]

Point is simple, there is no such thing as an arab-spring, it's business as usual. The arab-spring exists only the minds of leftist intellectulocos who know, for a fact, that they are screaming for democracy. The reality however is genocide of minorities, why do you think these backed Khadaffi and still back Assad. Let's not even begin about central Africa. Wrong as usual.

[Papewaio]

It is a long road to a functioning democracy.

Just look at UK from Cromwell to the 20th Century or France or Netherlands.

Most yo yo about depending on access to basic needs such as shelter, warmth and food.
The only real link to democracy gaining strength is the free flow of information.

So expect more blood on the road to freedom. It's a costly investment.

[Fragony]

Maybe a democracy just isn't what's best for them, and they are better off with a soft strong hand keeping things in check. Things are much more complicated there, it cannot be compared to European's rise of nations

[Fisherking]

Counter protests: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/75745/Egypt/Politics-/Clashes-erupt-in-Egypts-Zagazig-between-pro,-antiM.aspx

[HoreTore]

Point is simple, there is no such thing as an arab-spring, it's business as usual. The arab-spring exists only the minds of leftist intellectulocos who know, for a fact, that they are screaming for democracy. The reality however is genocide of minorities, why do you think these backed Khadaffi and still back Assad. Let's not even begin about central Africa. Wrong as usual.

Why do you insist on showing us that you don't know what the Arab spring was about?

I'll say it again: the Arab spring showed that the population in Arab countries could successfully overthrow their dictator. It was the first time such an event had occurred in the region.


The "left-wing"(most of them are centrist, but I guess such nuances are lost on you) intellectuals are spot on as always, while the right-wngers are as clueless as they have always been.

[Fragony]

Why do you insist on showing us that you don't know what the Arab spring was about?

I'll say it again: the Arab spring showed that the population in Arab countries could successfully overthrow their dictator. It was the first time such an event had occurred in the region.


The "left-wing"(most of them are centrist, but I guess such nuances are lost on you) intellectuals are spot on as always, while the right-wngers are as clueless as they have always been.

Can I have a bit of that clueless stuff it sounds great. Sorry for giving you another facepalm du jour but do you even know remotely anything about the place and it's history. Do you actually think this is anything new, if so I'll arrange you an appointment, last room on the left, you want the door with 'total idiot support' written on it. And don't you dare drooling there.

[HoreTore]

Can I have a bit of that clueless stuff it sounds great. Sorry for giving you another facepalm du jour but do you even know remotely anything about the place and it's history. Do you actually think this is anything new, if so I'll arrange you an appointment, last room on the left, you want the door with 'total idiot support' written on it. And don't you dare drooling there.

Yes, this is new. Saddam was the only one of that batch of dictators who had been overthrown prior to the Arab spring, but he was invaded by the US. Iran preceded it, but it failed to spread.

The Arab spring was a wave of overthrows or attempted overthrows across almost an entire region. To say that isn't a momentous event makes you utterly clueless.

[Fragony]

Yes, this is new. Saddam was the only one of that batch of dictators who had been overthrown prior to the Arab spring, but he was invaded by the US. Iran preceded it, but it failed to spread.

The Arab spring was a wave of overthrows or attempted overthrows across almost an entire region. To say that isn't a momentous event makes you utterly clueless.

Iranians aren't Arabs they are (mostly) Persians. Can I have two clueless please, and a coffee.

[HoreTore]

Iranians aren't Arabs they are (mostly) Persians. Can I have two clueless please, and a coffee.

Wow - shocker!

[Fragony]

Wow - shocker!

No, coffee

[HoreTore]

No, coffee

The proper argument against the reference to Iran is that the Shah was not a dictator from the same wave and mold as the dictators who are overthrown now.

[Fragony]

The proper argument against the reference to Iran is that the Shah was not a dictator from the same wave and mold as the dictators who are overthrown now.

Still pretty off no. An arab spring without arabs. Ceci n'est pas une, what the que did you just call it? At least it would be somewhat artistic but like this it really makes no sense

[HoreTore]

Still pretty off no. An arab spring without arabs. Ceci n'est pas une, what the que did you just call it? At least it would be somewhat artistic but like this it really makes no sense

.....And so I stated that it didn't count.

[Fragony]

.....And so I stated that it didn't count.

Oh you did, sorry for missing it. Perhaps it's just that Iranians and Arabs are absolutely fed up with having to live under the rules of islamists, I don't blame them really, about time they are fed up with these beards and make something nice out of the place.

[Fragony]

Edit, say it twice. Even by accident it's just better

of course I simply screwed up but having an excuse is awesome

I don't have any, help needed

[Fisherking]

Not so good developments: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Egypt-10-killed-over-200-injured-as-opponents-and-supporters-of-Mohamed-Morsi-clash/articleshow/20935811.cms

[Fragony]

I kinda like it really. Shoot to kill please. Or at least hurt very badly. Or at least very painfull.

[Fisherking]

I kinda like it really. Shoot to kill please. Or at least hurt very badly. Or at least very painfull.

Good thing you are not in the US! They would come and arrest you for that and forget about you.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/teenager-jailed-facebook-terrorist-threat-now-suicide-watch

Big brother is watching you.

[Fragony]

Heard about it. Kid is kinda stupid, you have to be carefull, some words link together and people get nervous. But release him already, if you aren't stupid if you are 17 you will probably be boring at 18.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Good thing you are not in the US! They would come and arrest you for that and forget about you.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/teenager-jailed-facebook-terrorist-threat-now-suicide-watch

Big brother is watching you.

Fisherking is posting an article from AlterNet. What has our government become for this to happen?

[PanzerJaeger]

Thankfully, Morsi's rather overt overtures to China must have woken someone up at the State Department. I have said it once and I'll say it again, these people are not capable of secular democracy, and the United States' toxic, erratic mix of idealism and realpolitik in the Middle East has and will continue to hinder the pursuit of our interests in the region. Hopefully we have reasserted control through this coup, but this all could have been avoided if we had stood by Mubarak as he had stood by us for years. He was a reliable puppet and we abandoned him, a betrayal of which other reliable puppets across the globe will certainly take note. This 'revolution' resulted in needless damage to our regional hegemony and not much else. The Egyptians demanded democracy, and after a mere year of it, they came out in the millions to celebrate a military coup ending it. Is there any more vivid evidence of the infantilization of the Arab Street?

[Fragony]

51 dead, hundreds wounded, Morsi calls for a revolt

I got beer, need popcorn.

GO ARMY knit some carpets with these beards I'll buy one

[a completely inoffensive name]

Thankfully, Morsi's rather overt overtures to China must have woken someone up at the State Department. I have said it once and I'll say it again, these people are not capable of secular democracy, and the United States' toxic, erratic mix of idealism and realpolitik in the Middle East has and will continue to hinder the pursuit of our interests in the region. Hopefully we have reasserted control through this coup, but this all could have been avoided if we had stood by Mubarak as he had stood by us for years. He was a reliable puppet and we abandoned him, a betrayal of which other reliable puppets across the globe will certainly take note. This 'revolution' resulted in needless damage to our regional hegemony and not much else. The Egyptians demanded democracy, and after a mere year of it, they came out in the millions to celebrate a military coup ending it. Is there any more vivid evidence of the infantilization of the Arab Street?

Story seems to be a bit more complex then that. The democratically elected leader decided he was above the Constitution he was just elected by. The army claims to have a sacred kinship with the people of egypt which is why the army has so far refused to simply become a military dictatorship with a general in charge. This might actually be a good step towards moderating abuse of power by those elected. The situation has certainly damaged the credibility of the muslim brotherhood for the next election and the whole affair has given opposing, liberal camps time to organize for the inevitable second election cycle.

[Perditrix Mvndorvm]

Story seems to be a bit more complex then that. The democratically elected leader decided he was above the Constitution he was just elected by. The army claims to have a sacred kinship with the people of egypt which is why the army has so far refused to simply become a military dictatorship with a general in charge. This might actually be a good step towards moderating abuse of power by those elected. The situation has certainly damaged the credibility of the muslim brotherhood for the next election and the whole affair has given opposing, liberal camps time to organize for the inevitable second election cycle.

The army only supported the people because Morsi threatened the flow of military aid from the US. Morsi's totalitarian tendencies were merely convenient pretexts.

[Fisherking]

Morsi’s government did not seem that democratic. While Egypt had been a dictatorship or one party system it was more secularized.

He at least appeared to have hijacked a democratic process and was trying to make it into an Islamic State.

There is also the matter of Jihadists in the Sinai operating with his knowledge and consent.

This was both a popular uprising and a military overthrow, and I am sure the Army acted in its own best interest.

It is a bit too early to tell how it will all pan out. Most of the violence seems to have been started by the MB or their supporters and the interim government does have the appearance of being more secular and moderate. Let us hope it was a victory for the Egyptian People and that they can get a freer and more democratic government.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The army only supported the people because Morsi threatened the flow of military aid from the US. Morsi's totalitarian tendencies were merely convenient pretexts.

Interesting, but why did they then kick out Mubarak then? What ended the realpolitik connection between the US and a stable, secular dictator who had been causing no issues since the 1980s?

[Beskar]

I find Panzer's continued call for a realpolitik hegemony over the middle-east to be perplexing. Why do you think such a foreign policy is a good idea? We're on track to be self-sufficient in regards to oil very soon, and we'd do better to assert our strength to the south if we were going to exert it at all.

Panzer does have a totalitarian bend to his beliefs. Idea being, it is better to have a totalitarian middle east supported by US interest, like Saddam, opposed to any real opportunities of self-governance of the local populace.

Personally, I believe if the whole world was democratic, then a collective hegemony would naturally develop, simply because of the governmental make-up of a democracy requires explaining yourself to the people and be seen to use far less extreme or authoritative measures. As such, states are far more willing to compromise and settle issues than to just jump in guns blazing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, I believe if the whole world was democratic, then a collective hegemony would naturally develop, simply because of the governmental make-up of a democracy requires explaining yourself to the people and be seen to use far less extreme or authoritative measures. As such, states are far more willing to compromise and settle issues than to just jump in guns blazing.

Then explain how the past 60 years of increased democracy and self determination has brought more nation-states than ever before. Democracy is a combative process and it naturally tends to cause neglected minorities to break away in favor of a smaller but more representative impact on the world.

[PanzerJaeger]

I find Panzer's continued call for a realpolitik hegemony over the middle-east to be perplexing. Why do you think such a foreign policy is a good idea? We're on track to be self-sufficient in regards to oil very soon, and we'd do better to assert our strength to the south if we were going to exert it at all.

I do not subscribe to neoconservatism. That particular ideology, which was the result of post-Cold War hubris, is fundamentally flawed in its tenet that, at a fundamental level, all peoples aspire to the Western ideal of society - a democratic system based in civil liberties and human rights. The belief was that if these Muslim peoples could be freed from their authoritarian governments, they would become democracies and natural allies of the United States. The failure of neocon geopolitical strategy during the Bush administration is often blamed on the attempt at greater hegemony, which is a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the goals and motivations of its backers. The true cause of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan was neocon faith in tribal Muslim societies to act in their own self interest, to come together to build a civil society based on Western ideals. The reality is that the Muslim throngs in the Middle East and Central Asia are not people in the same way that you and I are. Their beliefs, motivations, and social structures are so far removed from ours that the idea that they could function within Western norms is laughable. They simply do not have the intellectual capacity for it, due to a host of reasons I will not go into in this post. People get the leaders that they deserve, and far from being thrust upon them, authoritarianism is cultivated and rewarded through the zero sum politics of the region.

My geopolitical beliefs could best be described at this point as simple nationalism in the vein of Kissinger. We are a long way from 1991, and the United States can no longer afford to indulge in idealistic notions of spreading freedom and democracy around the globe. We need to pick winners and back them, regardless of the local power structure in which they operate. There are essentially two kinds of nations - powers and clients. Our status as a power comes with enormous benefits, benefits that we have come to rely on - most important of which at the moment is our ability to print endless money without being penalized with high interest rates in the global treasury market. If we lose our power status, we lose our default currency status and the whole house of cards implodes. We are no longer the only game in town, however, and clients recognize this. Observe Russia and China's steadfast loyalty to their man in Syria and compare that to our treatment of Mubarak when his tenure became slightly inconvenient. Now, if you were an aspiring autocrat in an oil rich Middle Eastern nation, who would you rather align yourself with? And if given a credible alternative (http://www.ibtimes.com/china-russia-currency-agreement-further-threatens-us-dollar-248338), would you continue to sell your oil in dollar denominated currency? Just as in the Cold War and virtually every other period in our nation's history, we will have to sacrifice certain ideals to further our national interests in the new multipolar world.

[Kadagar_AV]

wrote stuff

:yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

OR and this might just be crazy.....

We could take our money and invest in ourselves and become energy independent so we don't need to care a single bit about the middle east. Let Russia and China play politics over the oil while we gain a decades long head start in energy generation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, at least Panzer's honest. I think your interpretation of the middle-eastern mindset is a bit flawed and bordering on racist, but I won't deny that for the most part they definitely don't want any part of what we have to offer, at least not in a serious way. That's not because they don't have the 'capacity' for it, but because they are human beings with egos and a sense of history, and they don't like being pushed around. That's not hard to relate to.

What do you think of isolationism? Of minding our own business, and finding ethical and non-hypocritical ways to do business? Self sufficiency? Do we need to prop up dictators, in your opinion?

The problem with isolationism is that people assume the policy entails forcing oneself to be both blind and deaf and thus susceptible to another pearl harbor or 9/11.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even if it did, is it worth the collapse of our freedoms? This obsession with foreign policy will be the death of our nation.

It will and that's because you cannot convince 300 million people that there might be something greater than their lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And that is because our way of life creates gutless cowards. The country is full of them. That's no reason to just sit back and let them dictate the course of the nation with their petty fears. Liberty requires strength of purpose.

How can you instill strength in character among a population without strolling down totalitarianism lane? Mandatory voting? Reinstating the draft?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can't. Even Heinlein pictured a future in which character was instilled through never-ending inter-galactic warfare, and that's the best one I can think of. I've long since resigned to watching the slow decline of our culture and nation.

This posts contradicts the sentiment in your previous post. A man divided?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who isn't? There is a gap between what should be and what can be, and the biggest barrier seems to be free will and the democratic process. Quite frankly, I envy ancient societies for their ignorance and moral certainty.

The biggest difference between us and the ancients (at least the ancient athenians) is that they held the view that government was both a sculptor of its citizens and a sculpture by its citizens.

Every Monday and Wednesday I walk into my class (History of Ancient Philosophy) and for three hours we go over the questions that Socrates asked, "What is Virtue, piety, etc...". The American answers to many of these questions are not complete, but I would like to think that we at least are on the right sentiment when it comes to "What is freedom?" or "What is liberty?". If only we somehow cultivated a culture of civic duty. I don't know man. It's late and as my readings have shown, Socrates was completely correct about one thing, he didn't know anything.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Americans are the most informed people in the history of anything. Of course they understand these things academically. It is the imperative nature of these ethical questions that escapes them though. Freedom isn't academic. I don't know how you instill that into people who live soft lives.

Well, I would not exactly stand by your first sentence. I think the problem is that people actually don't ask the question in their lives enough in the first place.

What makes us soft is our tacit understanding that you begin to understand who you are in your college years. Our views are supposed to become cemented, our careers are supposed to begin, our loving commitments are supposed to be kindled. We need to remember the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius who frequently brings up the nature of life as change. When we decided that who we are by the end of our twenties shall be who we are by the end of our eighties, we began to become overly stubborn. In fact, I think soft is not the right word. Americans have become too brittle.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Our old leadership is brittle, but our youth is soft. I'd agree that this has a lot to do with our attitudes towards child-raising and social development.

In what way is the youth in particular soft?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Are you serious? Kids can't even fight eachother in school. Adults have no sense of honor at all, and would sell every ounce of dignity to avoid confrontation or hardship. People with a sense of self-sacrifice are the exception. My fellow Americans think the world owes them something, when a good citizen understands that it is in fact the reverse. And that's a fact that a good citizen should let guide his actions and morals. And a good citizen should have morals.

The hero in our society is the one who gets away with something. The person with the loop-hole, or the leg up, or the most money.

The key part in my question was youth *in particular*. You have pointed out a tendency among both adults and youth to avoid confrontation.

Personally, I would object to the "can't even fight" each other part. I still saw plenty of fights on the school property and they either ran when the admins came by or they simply didn't care about the punishment. And then there was even more fights off campus.

In regards to the world owing them something, that's universal among everyone. And everyone cheers for the bad guy in the movie nowadays.

My point being that this is not a generational issue. The problem is that America was sold an ideological trojan horse. The American Dream was labeled as a house with a car in the garage and a white picket fence. The original image was not to be taken at face value but as symbols. The house was the ability for everyone to own a piece of property that could call their own. The car was the ability for Americans to travel as they wished freely. The picket fence was the security of these freedoms as instilled in our Constitution. Somehow, the symbols were washed away in favor of the objects themselves. Which led to people becoming greedy and selfish and wanting things beyond their means.

[HoreTore]

Are you descending into the fascist belief of the vigour of youth and glorified action, GC?

[HoreTore]

Such a belief would be misguided, if only because we know how it ends.

Quite the opposite, actually.. I think the strongest kind of person is the one who suffers with dignity, not the one who lashes out at every sign of a threat.

Then why do you see the decline of fights as a negative?

[a completely inoffensive name]

What I mean is that confrontation has been totally bred out of our society. You only see it on the fringes, in the boondocks or the inner city, where it goes to waste most of the time. I don't like to think of myself as a chauvinist, but somewhere along the line we forgot how to act with dignity and pride. We are the strongest nation on earth, and even if all the other nations pooled their resources for a decade they could not match our conventional forces. Let alone the nukes and all. We should not hold our values hostage to the vague threat of terrorism. When did we become a nation of cowards?
I don't know man. I could rant about a bunch of things. But I honestly don't have an answer to that. Personally the main thing I wish would change is our conceptions of morality. I think for whatever reason, the popularity of post modern thought, the gross hypocrisy of organized religion, whatever, our commitment to morality has weakened. Instead we have replaced morality with the classic might makes right. Which leads to a society where a relative few bullies the meek masses.




This I agree with. Our generation didn't start this trend, and I actually think they're an awful lot ballsier than the baby boomers in most respects. That generation is still patting itself on the back for doing jack-all and wasting the efforts of their fathers.

No generation is perfect. The Greatest Generation were still the same people who succumbed to McCarthyism.

[HoreTore]

Fighting in itself has no value, its the attitude towards it. Everything is so protected in this country, everyone wants to live in this perfect little artificial bubble of American civilization and never learn about the hardships of the world. Our middle-class is next to useless when it comes to having a spine, or any perspective. Someone who's never had the crap beaten out of them does not have perspective.

Are you still on actual fist-fights now, or did you move to a more metaphorical definition of "fight"?

Anyway, if it's still the former, I don't see a necessary relationship between your statements. One could argue that a fight(or war or whatever) is what happens when someone no longer sees any other options, and thus an increase in viable and sensible options causes a reduction of fights, and that this has happened in the US.

Also, I see the opposite. I see fighting everywhere, and a disdain for showing weakness. This is most pronounced with cancer. Cancer isn't a disease you suffer from. Cancer, as our society sees it, is a battle you're expected to fight with your head held high. A cancer patient isn't supposed to show any weakness or signs of suffering.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Metaphors work too, but actual fist fights are still an important factor here. The entire character of modern western civilization is shaped by this obsession to avoid injury and mortality, and that leads to shallow and pathetic people. Kids should beat the crap out of eachother in school, god damnit.

Kids should fight when the situation calls for it. Part of understanding conflict is in knowing when to step up.

[HoreTore]

Metaphors work too, but actual fist fights are still an important factor here. The entire character of modern western civilization is shaped by this obsession to avoid injury and mortality, and that leads to shallow and pathetic people. Kids should beat the crap out of eachother in school, god damnit.

Now that I can agree with. It's a shame Per Fugelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Fugelli) is a Norwegian, he has written some extremely good essays on the subject, and I think you'd like them.

But I don't see the relationship to school fights, as I see the cause of that as being domination and a lack of the creativity to solve conflicts in a more sensible way.

[Ironside]

Then why do you see the decline of fights as a negative?

Probably something to do with his image of the ideal man, suffer with dignity evidently means no crying out of empathy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's a bit narrow to focus on the issue of violence when talking about a problem of "softness" within a culture, which is a nebulous word to begin with.

I don't think that the lack of school yard fights is what makes America trade freedom for perceived security. Everyone has an idea of what the ideal man is. The problem is not that we are or are not adhering to a particular view. The problem is that we do not allow the conversation to take place. We have in many places replaced the moral agency of people with institutions. Instead of letting two kids fight it out, we have the school essentially fight the kids. My high school is located in a relatively middle class, racially homogeneous, quiet city. And yet we still had at least one cop on patrol, locked gates surrounding the complex, and security cameras watching the common areas. Because we had to have NO TOLERANCE towards anything that signified anti-social behavior.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That about sums it up.

Just to clarify any confusion with my previous comment on the idea of government both shaping and being shaped by its citizens, what we have set up is not government shaping people through judgement of actions, we have government shaping through restriction of actions. Socrates called Judges as the analogous equivalent to a doctor for the soul. A doctor examines your health after the fact and gives a judgement, he does not forcibly dictate your life for you.

[HoreTore]

I'm just using the fights as an example. I can think of a million little ways that our society has gone soft, but I think you understand the sentiment? I don't think force should be a first resort, but people shouldn't be going so far out of the way to avoid it either. Just like no judge in his right mind should have let that lady take McDonald's for millions over hot coffee. People are too thin-skinned, is my point. There we go.

Well to be honest, I fully support that lady after watching Hot Coffee. Burns like that, caused by negligence, should lead to the company being punished. What the documentary also highlighted in a very good way is the massive difference between the american left and the european left. The american left's solution to a woman suffering major burns due to negligence, is to make the company pay for her treatment and compensate her. The european left would answer that the state should treat her and slap the company with a small fine, which of course gets bigger if they take a long time addressing it. That movie, made by american lefties, depicted state care of mentally handicapped people as the ultimate evil. I can't imagine a european leftie ever thinking like that.

But I know that was just an illustration, and my reply has little to do with your point. As for your point, I don't know, I can't really agree that we've "gone soft", at least not in the way you define it. I see the same avoidance of pain as you do, but I link it to an obsession with happiness and strength, and a disdain for and contempt of weakness. I link it to the expectation of happiness we have, and when life can't deliver that perfect happiness, we look for someone to blame for it instead of showing weakness.

[HoreTore]

modern civilization would be awesome.

I think it really is. And I also think it's getting better and better, as each new generation is better in every way than the previous.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think it really is. And I also think it's getting better and better, as each new generation is better in every way than the previous.

You will have to elaborate on why.

[HoreTore]

You will have to elaborate on why.


Now that I disagree with. To paraphrase something from a mediocre book I read once: I see our civilization like an arrow shot at the sun. Its reached the apex of its pointless journey, and now its coming back down to earth.

Materially we are getting better and better, we are more educated than ever before, violence(and other crimes) is going down, wars are becoming rarer.

You don't have to go far back in history before you find the attitude that going into the military and killing others was superduperawesome. Now every war has major demonstrations against it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Materially we are getting better and better, we are more educated than ever before, violence(and other crimes) is going down, wars are becoming rarer.

You don't have to go far back in history before you find the attitude that going into the military and killing others was superduperawesome. Now every war has major demonstrations against it.

I see what you are saying, and there is some validity to it. But I don't subscribe to the notion that history is simply the recording of progress. For all the improvements in our material life, I feel that there has been a severe downturn in the standard of living for our spiritual life.

At the very least, society has been or will be worse off by these young New Atheists walking around that are one financial crisis away from running towards their nearest church crying for Jesus.

[HoreTore]

Here is a wonderful example.

Why are there demonstrations? Because people have a moral problem with war? If so, why do they tolerate their leaders doing the same thing in the shadows--and often much worse? Why do they also tolerate the economic imperialism that has oppressed the third world for generations?

I think they demonstrate because they are merely afraid to go to war. And that's just pathetic.

Why we tolerate economic imperialism in the third world? Because we haven't yet reached the stage where we end it. In the past, however, we kidnapped and massacred the third world, instituting brutal regimes wherever we went.

Today isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness).

[HoreTore]

I see what you are saying, and there is some validity to it. But I don't subscribe to the notion that history is simply the recording of progress. For all the improvements in our material life, I feel that there has been a severe downturn in the standard of living for our spiritual life.

At the very least, society has been or will be worse off by these young New Atheists walking around that are one financial crisis away from running towards their nearest church crying for Jesus.

I'm a communist. "Our spiritual life" has absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm a communist. "Our spiritual life" has absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.

You are fooling yourself. As a Communist your ideology touts the kinship of all workers and all human beings. This connection with all humans everywhere is your spirituality directed by an ideology.

Everyone has a spiritual side to them. The religious have some self recognition of their spirituality. The New Atheists simply swap out God with the abstract concept of "science" and go about their day oblivious to what they have done.

[HoreTore]

Every single middle-class American who lives a life of convenience does so on the shoulders, sweat, blood, and tears of the people in the third world and China who prop up our global economy. It is a delusional back-slapping kind of hypocrisy. The material benefits of modern civilization don't even come close to making up for the holes in our morality. People only have a problem with it when it personally inconveniences them, as in a war.

I have no real problems with that analysis.


You are fooling yourself. As a Communist your ideology touts the kinship of all workers and all human beings. This connection with all humans everywhere is your spirituality directed by an ideology.

Everyone has a spiritual side to them. The religious have some self recognition of their spirituality. The New Atheists simply swap out God with the abstract concept of "science" and go about their day oblivious to what they have done.

Yeah, spiritual people are always quick to claim that "we're all similar, it's just that I'm aware and you're not".... I don't buy it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, spiritual people are always quick to claim that "we're all similar, it's just that I'm aware and you're not".... I don't buy it.

"Spiritual" people are a mixed bunch. The term sucks because new age people have personified it and characterized it in such a silly fashion. By spirituality, I mean that all humans have an urge to establish mental connections with certain abstract concepts in order to feel part of something bigger.

Family, community, fellow workers, humanity, God, science, nationalism, etc... These are all spiritual relationships. We as individuals cannot actually interact with God, or with an entire nation, or the essence of family, but we nevertheless find ourselves putting great pride and deriving strength from such things. That is what I seem to think is lacking in our society. And I think this is close to what GC​ feels is missing as well.

[HoreTore]

"Spiritual" people are a mixed bunch. The term sucks because new age people have personified it and characterized it in such a silly fashion. By spirituality, I mean that all humans have an urge to establish mental connections with certain abstract concepts in order to feel part of something bigger.

Family, community, fellow workers, humanity, God, science, nationalism, etc... These are all spiritual relationships. We as individuals cannot actually interact with God, or with an entire nation, or the essence of family, but we nevertheless find ourselves putting great pride and deriving strength from such things. That is what I seem to think is lacking in our society. And I think this is close to what GC​ feels is missing as well.

As a commie, I'm one of those who don't place any weight on such things. I can interact with my union and my parents, but then again I've never had this religious obsession with the concept of "family" I see other people have anyway.

As for humanity, are you suggesting that it's "spiritual" if you feel empathy when seeing a stranger suffer? If so, I do believe you're stretching the term to ridiculous lengths. You can't make a term that noone can ever escape from, and then hammer on about a narrow field of it and claim that it applies to everyone.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As a commie, I'm one of those who don't place any weight on such things. I can interact with my union and my parents, but then again I've never had this religious obsession with the concept of "family" I see other people have anyway.

As for humanity, are you suggesting that it's "spiritual" if you feel empathy when seeing a stranger suffer? If so, I do believe you're stretching the term to ridiculous lengths. You can't make a term that noone can ever escape from, and then hammer on about a narrow field of it and claim that it applies to everyone.

No, it has nothing to do with your one on one interactions with individuals. The fact that you take that empathy you established from an individual and from there you then applied that empathy across all of humanity such that your goal is to create a society that harbors no class or racial divisions. You empathize with countless people you have never even met and you would fight for the ability for everyone to live in a proposed utopian society that we call Communism. As such, you harbor a spiritual connection with the abstract concept of humanity as a whole.

If we are talking about a real supporter of Communistic ideals, you cannot simultaneously believe that humanity is some "meh" concept that you couldn't care less about while at the same time pledging yourself to the defense and aid of this same concept.

[HoreTore]

No, it has nothing to do with your one on one interactions with individuals. The fact that you take that empathy you established from an individual and from there you then applied that empathy across all of humanity such that your goal is to create a society that harbors no class or racial divisions. You empathize with countless people you have never even met and you would fight for the ability for everyone to live in a proposed utopian society that we call Communism. As such, you harbor a spiritual connection with the abstract concept of humanity as a whole.

If we are talking about a real supporter of Communistic ideals, you cannot simultaneously believe that humanity is some "meh" concept that you couldn't care less about while at the same time pledging yourself to the defense and aid of this same concept.

Thing is though that I'm not a real communist, and actually disdain its ideals(as I do with any other ideals).

I mostly treat communism as a tool to explain social phenomena, ie. analytical marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism).

You'd hit closer to home by using a concept like justice, but to claim that justice is spiritual seems absurd.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Thing is though that I'm not a real communist, and actually disdain its ideals(as I do with any other ideals).

I mostly treat communism as a tool to explain social phenomena, ie. analytical marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Marxism).

You'd hit closer to home by using a concept like justice, but to claim that justice is spiritual seems absurd.

I wish I could type up a proper reply right now, but I am nearly passing out (almost 3am here). Maybe someone else will pick up where I left off while I sleep and go to class tomorrow. Nevertheless, I do believe that justice can be/is a spiritual affair. Doesn't seem very absurd to me as of this moment.

[HoreTore]

I wish I could type up a proper reply right now, but I am nearly passing out (almost 3am here). Maybe someone else will pick up where I left off while I sleep and go to class tomorrow. Nevertheless, I do believe that justice can be/is a spiritual affair. Doesn't seem very absurd to me as of this moment.

The absurdness comes from the fact that you've just created a definition of spirituality noone can ever escape. It is also so wide that if you're going to use it for anything, you can only apply a small field of it at a time. This small field will then have to apply to everyone, and that's a major problem, rendering the term useless and absurd.

Also, classes in July...? Holidays man, holidays!

[a completely inoffensive name]

The absurdness comes from the fact that you've just created a definition of spirituality noone can ever escape. It is also so wide that if you're going to use it for anything, you can only apply a small field of it at a time. This small field will then have to apply to everyone, and that's a major problem, rendering the term useless and absurd.

Also, classes in July...? Holidays man, holidays!

Hmm, I think I see what you are saying. Give me a day to think about it.

EDIT: Also, I purposely took summer classes so I could reduce my work load over the regular year. Also I still need distractions from my break up.

[Ironside]

I'm just saying, if he had so much empathy why were the first words out of his mouth "Oh god, I have it on video!" Only then did he go out of his way to display "sympathy."

I couldn't find the clip so I'm only going after what you say.

That would be complaining about false sympathy, which wasn't really there in the first post. And it's quite possible for it to take a while before reality sinks in, thus getting a strong shift in reaction.


Empathy doesn't require advertisement.

No, but a strong reaction would need very active suppression and a very strong reaction is pretty close to impossible to stop.

You've pretty much said that an American with a proper "heart" doesn't cry (like a girl) and always stand their ground in a fight (rather than trying to avoid it). It is incidently included in the "American man" image and also not really related to "self-sacrifice" and "honour" (compared to pride).

[HopAlongBunny]

Perhaps, for the USA, democracy is not enough:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html

Looking to manufacture the "right kind" of democracy?

Now with a rebuttal, of sorts:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/201371315254181476.html

[Montmorency]

Minor Necro:

I enjoy that Panzerjaeger is one of the few here to espouse a realist approach, but it's not clear to me that Mubarak = Assad, or even that Egyptians = Syrians. Is there any indication that anything short of direct intervention by the US would have saved Mubarak? That a substantial part of the Army would have been willing to fight on his behalf even if the US had averred its support for him from Hour One?

I'm fairly confident that abandoning Mubarak publicly and speedily will be shown to have had a much better result for American foreign policy than would, at best, an embarrassing public plump for a notorious and easily deposed dictator, and at worst a brutal civil war with American troops on the ground leading to who-knows-what in Libya and Syria.

Mostly it's that the Age of Dictatorship is over, and the masses have once again become increasingly importunate with respect to their lifestyles and representation. Some dictators or autocratic regimes can continue to stand, sure, but it is no longer possible to guarantee one's survival with our aid, let alone politically tenable. Anyway, by now most of those remaining should be counted among the 'unfriendly' states - Russia, China, Iran, for instance - and a few unimportant ones such as Sri Lanka and North Korea. It no longer makes sense to fund dictatorships, and arguably it never did.

Geopolitical realism should no longer consider 'asshole bully' as a legitimate and effective strand of thought.

And it certainly belies the realist perspective to sweepingly dismiss the entire Middle East as a hopelessly tribal and authoritarian region that will remain so for centuries to come. Realism demands far more than artificial generalizations to regional character based more on elitist prejudice than coherent trends.

In sum, you make misleading equivalencies regarding the peoples of the Middle East, overestimate both Mubarak's usefulness to us and the strength of his position, and overstate the value and feasibility of enforced clientilism to the US in the 21st century.

Also, to return to Libya: Widespread dispersal of military hardware, Boko Haram, Benghazi, Mali, Niger, Al-Qaeda in Libya, etc. may all stem from this particular conflict, and continuing bad news from the region may in time vindicate your gainsaying, but it seems to me a little strange that

1. Black Africans are being reduced to refugee status by the rebels, so we should withhold support and let, if not help, the dictator overwhelm them. We must not support agents of human-rights abuse. Qaddafi is not our enemy, and we might yet make an ally of him by preserving his hide.

2. Massive popular protests are threatening Mubarak's position, so we must do everything we can to make sure that they are brutally suppressed. Mubarak is our friend, and we should be seen to be helping our friends.

It's a similar argument that you made, but in that ideological light your intense focus on the 'plight' of the black Africans seems downright meretricious.

[Fragony]

Kewl, over a hundred people got killed yesterday. Gutmensch who is morally and intellectually superior knows, for a fact, that it is an arab spring. Hey EU, there are still 1.000.000.000 euro's you gave to the muslim brotherhood that are kinda gone. Can you please get that back before they rain down on the jews, who are apes and pigs according to Morsi. People who read quality media can't know that, but he does say that on Palestinian tv

Taqiyayaya

[Major Robert Dump]

Man things are getting bad over there. Someone really needs to make a high-profile insult against the prophet so they can all come together

[Fragony]

I kinda like it really, the muslim brotherhood and it's supporters leftist islamphiles so deeply admire are scum. Maybe we are actually seeing change in Egypt that is for the better.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well Morsi and the Brotherhood did demonstrate an inability to tame some of their more Islamist tendencies.

But let's not overlook what the Army is doing - massacres, denials, mass incarceration of political opponents etc.

IMO neither Islamism nor Army rule is what any Middle Eastern country needs. Some sort of power sharing would be best here I believe.

[rvg]

Well Morsi and the Brotherhood did demonstrate an inability to tame some of their more Islamist tendencies.
I don't think he had any desire to tame them. If anything, he encouraged them.


But let's not overlook what the Army is doing - massacres, denials, mass incarceration of political opponents etc.
So we're back to Bashar vs Al-Nusra.


IMO neither Islamism nor Army rule is what any Middle Eastern country needs. Some sort of power sharing would be best here I believe.
That would be best, it's just a matter of how achievable that is.

[Fragony]

Well Morsi and the Brotherhood did demonstrate an inability to tame some of their more Islamist tendencies.

Testing the water, they may be crazy but they aren't stupid

[Fragony]

Looks like the EU is dissapointed the muslim brotherhood got adieud, Lady Ashton -> Egypt. Where was the international-socialism at the riots before the installment of Morsi, and why did the international-socialism give the muslim brotherhood a shitload of money. But of course the Eurabia-theory is pure nonsense

[Rhyfelwyr]

Looks like the EU is dissapointed the muslim brotherhood got adieud, Lady Ashton -> Egypt. Where was the international-socialism at the riots before the installment of Morsi, and why did the international-socialism give the muslim brotherhood a shitload of money. But of course the Eurabia-theory is pure nonsense

Maybe you should look into some of the funding going towards the Army and the Tamarod movement.

[Fragony]

Maybe you should look into some of the funding going towards the Army and the Tamarod movement.

Can I please be a hypocrite?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Can I please be a hypocrite?

OK.

[rvg]

278 people dead (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/14/world/meast/egypt-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)... This is civil war territory or darn close to that.

[Fragony]

lol at leftist intellectulocos who knew, for a fact, that it's an arab spring. Wrong as usual. What leftist intellectulocos will never understand is that they simply don't get it

[Papewaio]

The French Revolution took ten years. Some of the most violent towards the end.

So the Arab spring still has nine to go.

[Fragony]

Oh common, it just isn't what some thought it was. Almost 800 dead in a few weeks, 9 years to go?

Edit, in the meantime, video of the execution of two kids by allahu akhbar screaming beards surfaced. Not Egypt though Syria has an arab spring as well

[Vuk]

The military is doing the right thing. The more jihadis they kill the better. We aught to be helping them, not condemning them.

[Fragony]

Yay, leftist intellectuals know, for a fact, that it's an arab spring, and they know, for a fact, that the brotherhood is moderate. 74 attacks on koptic schools and churches in just a few days. Wrong as usual.

I want to know why the international-socialism wired 5 billion to the brotherhood, Eurabia-theory of Bat Y'or comes to mind

[a completely inoffensive name]

As long as Egypt has a stable, secular government in the end, I don't care what it takes to get to that point. You need a sufficient middle class for a successful transition to liberal democracy. It is obvious that any group which bases its politics off of Islamic ideals is a greater threat to liberty and stability than their competitors.

[HoreTore]

You need a sufficient middle class for a successful transition to liberal democracy.

This really doesn't have much to do with Egypt specifically, but I object to this statement.

I'd rather say that you need an urbanized, industrialized and organized working class in order to create a functioning democracy. I believe the history of Europe shows that well; we didn't get a proper democracy until the majority of the population belonged to the organized working class, living in cities and working in factories.

When they were working on farms, we only had the version of democracy Marx called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a very fitting description.

[HoreTore]

Yay, leftist intellectuals know, for a fact, that it's an arab spring, and they know, for a fact, that the brotherhood is moderate. 74 attacks on koptic schools and churches in just a few days. Wrong as usual.

I want to know why the international-socialism wired 5 billion to the brotherhood, Eurabia-theory of Bat Y'or comes to mind

Batty bat y'eor is the perfect example of a complete whackjob, she hasn't been right about anything in her entire life.

Anyway frags, since you know that the "left wing intellectuals" were wrong about everything concerning the arab spring, would you care to share a peer-reviewed, academic paper which shows just how wrong they are?

[rvg]

Anyway frags, since you know that the "left wing intellectuals" were wrong about everything concerning the arab spring, would you care to share a peer-reviewed, academic paper which shows just how wrong they are?
Who would bother researching how wrong the leftists are?

[a completely inoffensive name]

This really doesn't have much to do with Egypt specifically, but I object to this statement.

I'd rather say that you need an urbanized, industrialized and organized working class in order to create a functioning democracy. I believe the history of Europe shows that well; we didn't get a proper democracy until the majority of the population belonged to the organized working class, living in cities and working in factories.

When they were working on farms, we only had the version of democracy Marx called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a very fitting description.

Industrialization brings about a middle class. Political activism arises out of a lack of concern towards more necessary issues such as food, water and shelter. This happens only when you make enough money for such necessities to be satisfied on a day to day basis.

The French got their republic when they had a stable paycheck that supported them and their family. They got the Reign of Terror and Napoleon when they were still farmers of subsistence. Merely living next to a bunch of people and working in a factory does nothing to support a liberal democracy. In fact I would suggest that if the industrialized, urbanized, and organized New Yorkers of the 1880s had their way, the US would have been very illiberal, (especially to the blacks and Irish) for a time until there was enough jobs and money to go around for everyone.

[Fragony]

Batty bat y'eor is the perfect example of a complete whackjob, she hasn't been right about anything in her entire life.

Anyway frags, since you know that the "left wing intellectuals" were wrong about everything concerning the arab spring, would you care to share a peer-reviewed, academic paper which shows just how wrong they are?

Why would I have to do such a thing when it's right in your face. There is no need.

Wrong as usual.

Bat Y'or aint no whackjob by the way, leftist intellectuals just can't stand it that she is proven right again and again. What did the international-socialism do the minute the brotherhood came to power? They wired them billions of euro's. You just don't like her, that doesn't make her a whackjob. Islamorealists saw this comming, and gutmensch doesn't like it that they themselves once again got it all wrong.

[Brenus]

“The French got their republic when they had a stable paycheck that supported them and their family. They got the Reign of Terror and Napoleon when they were still farmers of subsistence”: Err, not really but I won’t discuss about your strange point of view… 1798, the First Revolution, came because the Political Powers was not able to resolve a very concrete problem. The Monarchist Institution was not able to resolve the problem of Finances, so the Human Way to deal with blockade is to break them. Then, like most of the time, the resolution of the problem generates a political agenda. In the case of the French 1st Revolution, taxes had to be approved by a representative (so elected) Parliament, hence the end of the absolute Monarchy (in short).
As Farmers and Revolutions, the other French Revolutions (successes or defeats) went on during Industrialisation Times.

[a completely inoffensive name]

“The French got their republic when they had a stable paycheck that supported them and their family. They got the Reign of Terror and Napoleon when they were still farmers of subsistence”: Err, not really but I won’t discuss about your strange point of view… 1798, the First Revolution, came because the Political Powers was not able to resolve a very concrete problem. The Monarchist Institution was not able to resolve the problem of Finances, so the Human Way to deal with blockade is to break them. Then, like most of the time, the resolution of the problem generates a political agenda. In the case of the French 1st Revolution, taxes had to be approved by a representative (so elected) Parliament, hence the end of the absolute Monarchy (in short).
As Farmers and Revolutions, the other French Revolutions (successes or defeats) went on during Industrialisation Times.

It wasn't until 1870 after decades of industrialization and the increasing presence of wage labor that a French Republic stuck around longer than a decade. Napoleon I and III were absolute dictators (emperors) and were supported by the masses because the only thing the masses wanted back then was a steady supply of food. What I am saying is that by the latter half of the 19th century, the concerns of the common man were able to go beyond subsistence and actually hit upon the issue of political freedom in more than name only. This is because wage labor and industrialization allowed for individuals to not worry about whether or not they will be fed which gives them time to think about other, more abstract concerns.

[Major Robert Dump]

So last week the fools in Washington overwhelmingly vote not to stop military and financial assistance to the Egypt government. Now they are doing an about face upon seeing American tanks rolling over civilians.

Everything US Foreign Policy touches turns to poop.

[HopAlongBunny]

So last week the fools in Washington overwhelmingly vote not to stop military and financial assistance to the Egypt government.
Everything US Foreign Policy touches turns to poop.

Caught in the same bind as Russia with Assad. Gotta back back the pony you put in the race :(
Withdraw assistance => lose any levers to influence outcome; an outcome which will be attributed to your influence anyhow :p

[HoreTore]

Who would bother researching how wrong the leftists are?

Before asserting that they are wrong, it's usually slightly relevant to find out what their opinion actually is.

I didn't need an answer from frags though, I already know the answer: he hasn't read a single paper. As usual, he is completely and utterly clueless about what he's talking about, resorting to simply parroting what right-wing demagogues are saying. And they haven't read any academic papers either, so it's a circle wank of cluelessness.

Bat Y'eor wouldn't have passed a simple bachelor degree with her eurabia nonsense, she would've failed right in the first chapter; the methodology. And when the methodology is failed, it's no surprises that her entire argument falls to pieces.

Come to think of it, I think we can take it even further: I believe I would've failed her in my class of 14-year olds as well. I expect a deeper understanding of how to treat historical data from my students than what she has shown.

[HoreTore]

Industrialization brings about a middle class. Political activism arises out of a lack of concern towards more necessary issues such as food, water and shelter. This happens only when you make enough money for such necessities to be satisfied on a day to day basis.

The French got their republic when they had a stable paycheck that supported them and their family. They got the Reign of Terror and Napoleon when they were still farmers of subsistence. Merely living next to a bunch of people and working in a factory does nothing to support a liberal democracy. In fact I would suggest that if the industrialized, urbanized, and organized New Yorkers of the 1880s had their way, the US would have been very illiberal, (especially to the blacks and Irish) for a time until there was enough jobs and money to go around for everyone.

What I deem a "full democracy" didn't come about until WWI-ish, ie. when fordism hit us.

I also realize now that you're using the american version of the term "middle class", which is what I call the working class. So I guess we're in agreement.

Also: that something can happen when certain factors are present, doesn't imply that it has to happen. So to counter your 1880's New Yorker, the economic situation in Germany in the 30's was similar to most other democracies, yet they went with Hitler and we went with democracy. That the New Yorker would've gone illeberal doesn't automatically mean that the factors behind him isn't ideal for democratic formation as well.

[Brenus]

“It wasn't until 1870 after decades of industrialization and the increasing presence of wage labor that a French Republic stuck around longer than a decade.” The III Republic came after the III Empire failure. As long Napoleon the Small was able to deal with the problem, he survived. His defeat and the total failure of his generals to solve a concrete problem as the invasion of France led to the proclamation of the III Republic. It was not for political reason but the failure of the Imperial System in France.

“Napoleon I and III were absolute dictators (emperors) and were supported by the masses because the only thing the masses wanted back then was a steady supply of food.” I partially agree with this. However I would say that the masses will endure the dictatorship if they are fed and not too openly oppressed. And again, Napoleon the First was not defeated by a Revolution within, but by the coalition of all Europe Monarchies and Empires (7 of them from 1792 to 1815). Again, the failure of the system to resolve a very concrete problem, not a political point brought the end of the Regime.

[Fragony]

Before asserting that they are wrong, it's usually slightly relevant to find out what their opinion actually is.

I didn't need an answer from frags though, I already know the answer: he hasn't read a single paper. As usual, he is completely and utterly clueless about what he's talking about, resorting to simply parroting what right-wing demagogues are saying. And they haven't read any academic papers either, so it's a circle wank of cluelessness.

Bat Y'eor wouldn't have passed a simple bachelor degree with her eurabia nonsense, she would've failed right in the first chapter; the methodology. And when the methodology is failed, it's no surprises that her entire argument falls to pieces.

Come to think of it, I think we can take it even further: I believe I would've failed her in my class of 14-year olds as well. I expect a deeper understanding of how to treat historical data from my students than what she has shown.

It's normal that lefties say someone is parroting. It's what they all are saying. Almost singing, like a choir

Sad reality is that we are almost always right, and lefties are almost always wrong. I got reality on my side, what do you have besides disliking reality.

Reality being, the international-socialism wiring billions to the brotherhood, who have a very big influence on the mosques and islamic foundations in Europe.

[Brenus]

“Reality being, the international-socialism wiring billions to the brotherhood, who have a very big influence on the mosques and islamic foundations in Europe.” Reality being, Saudi Arabia is wiring billions to the Wahabist for their mosques and Islamic foundations in Europe (and Charities, and sport events). Didn’t know that The Hashemite were lefties…

[Fragony]

“Reality being, the international-socialism wiring billions to the brotherhood, who have a very big influence on the mosques and islamic foundations in Europe.” Reality being, Saudi Arabia is wiring billions to the Wahabist for their mosques and Islamic foundations in Europe (and Charities, and sport events). Didn’t know that The Hashemite were lefties…

No they aren't, how does the fact that mosques in Europe are funded by Saudi's change the fact that the international-socialism funds the muslim brotherhood? It's all the same thing, but the Eurabia-theory is of course nonsense.

[Fragony]

+ 82 deaths. Morte.

Leftist people know, for a fact, that it is an arab spring. Real experts who don't pray to the leftist church warned for this. Koptic christians and moderate muslims are desperate. But nono, it is an arab spring. A Dutch collumnist with a history degree doesn't even know that Turks are not arabs in his collumn in quality media

Duchies only http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/6178/Thomas-von-der-Dunk/article/detail/3490455/2013/08/11/Van-de-Arabische-Lentke-is-nauwelijks-nog-iets-over.dhtml

'COLUMN Columnist Thomas von der Dunk beschouwt de zogenoemde Arabische Lente en concludeert dat er weinig reden is tot optimisme. Te beginnen in Turkije.'

Lololol, quality media

[Fragony]

Lulz. The unelected von Rompuy and the unelected Barroso are suddenly concerned now that supporters of the brotherhood they so deeply admire are getting mobbed up by the secular army. Where were they when coptic christians were under constant abuse. Wait, they were wiring money to the brotherhood.

Eurabia

[Rhyfelwyr]

In an ironic turn of events, the Army is now manufacturing anti-Western and anti-Israel conspiracy theories (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/us-britain-israel-plotting-egypt). I thought this bit was particularly interesting:

"Tamarrod, the organisation whose mass protests ushered in the coup against Morsi last month, is now campaigning for a rejection of US aid. It also wants to revoke the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty."

So, it seems the Army is offering that good old mixture of civilian massacres, mass detainment of political opponents, whipping up jingoism, and of court anti-Semetism. Most of which the Brotherhood is guilty of as well, but we need to recognise the wrongs on both sides.

And Frags, like you said you are being a hypocrite, the Army has continued to receive billions in Western aid since Morsi was chucked out.

Yes there are faults on both sides and the Brotherhood has committed many serious crimes against Copts, but that doesn't excuse how the Army has massacred peaceful protestors.

[Fragony]

Peacefull protesters who burned 74 churches in a day

[Rhyfelwyr]

Peacefull protesters who burned 74 churches in a day

So these crimes were carried out by the sit-in protestors in Cairo were they? Do the actions of Brotherhood mobs in one part of the country justify the massacre of unarmed Brotherhood supporters just by association? As far as I am aware the Brotherhood as an organisation has condemned violence against Copts, and indeed this surge in church burning etc has occurred after Morsi was removed.

Look, I think both sides have far crossed the line, I just don't get why you only worry about the Brotherhood. The Army/elements in the Tamarod movement are ultra-nationalist, anti-Western, and are suppressing any and all political dissent. Heck, Tamarod have effectively called for a state of war with Israel. That's serious stuff.

[Fragony]

I worry about the EU

Dhimmi's and islamphiles https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7W5q0yUw9MhkrNKfF0Avy-lfO4vq2wdVbbn9aSZVWfVTjWXcwHQ

[Brenus]

“No they aren't, how does the fact that mosques in Europe are funded by Saudi's change the fact that the international-socialism funds the muslim brotherhood?” It doesn’t (of course it is an absolutely mistake to believe so, but I think you don't have the right definition of lefties anyway). It is just to rectify your mistake, when pretending that the Muslin Brother Hood was funding the Mosques in Europe. The Muslim World is fractured in a number of Sects, and mixing one with another is a mistake.

“It's all the same thing”: That is like to say that all Christians follow the Pope.

[Fragony]

I said they have a lot of influence. I did say that the international-socialism funds the muslim brotherhood though. That Flemish ferret von Rompuy wired them 5 billion dollars. To everybody's surprise nobody knows where it is.

Edit, also positive news, muslims protect coptic church against Morsi supporters. I like.

[The Lurker Below]

cut me some slack because this comes from a place of blissful ignorance:

I expect that socialists would be pro-human rights. So I have a hard time imagining them supporting Muslim groups, many of which have little respect for the rights of non-believers and females, even females who share the faith.

edit - the point being this question: what motivation does international socialists have for supporting Muslims?

[Fragony]

My personal version of a Godwin, don't take it too serious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Mubarak looks set for release within 48 hours (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/egypt-hosni-mubarak-could-be-freed-sinai-police-deaths-live)

It will be interesting to see how people react to this.

Meanwhile, 24 Egyptian police killed in Sinai ambush (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23751954)

The location would indicate the Jihadis did this. Whether this attack was by the Brotherhood, or out of sympathy for them, is unclear, but it's definitely a possibility. As bad as the massacres in Cairo have been, this sort of retaliation is the last thing that is needed.

[Fragony]

Odd, only bedouins come there and they are neutral, always have been. Must be foreign.

[Fisherking]

I thought I posted something on the Sinai some weeks ago, just as they were kicking Mursi out of office. The MBH had set up training camps there, likely with US aid money, and it was a no-go area for just about everyone.

Try google

[Fragony]

I thought I posted something on the Sinai some weeks ago, just as they were kicking Mursi out of office. The MBH had set up training camps there, likely with US aid money, and it was a no-go area for just about everyone.

Try google

More likely EU money, that Flemish ferret von Rompuy didn't waste a minute funding Morsi, he wired 5 billion euro's. Kinda musing on where it went at the moment, money is gone at least, nobody knows where it is at the moment. Would kinda make sense that they are building trainingcamps over there. Also, 4 men killing 24, odd. They must have troops there.

[rvg]

More likely EU money, that Flemish ferret von Rompuy didn't waste a minute funding Morsi, he wired 5 billion euro's. Kinda musing on where it went at the moment, money is gone at least, nobody knows where it is at the moment. Would kinda make sense that they are building trainingcamps over there.

I'm sure they're training ambassadors of peace, equality and justice for all.

[Fragony]

1+1=2 seems pretty obvious there are training camps there to me. 4 guys could never have killed 24. Hi, lefties! This s your arab-spring. Who could have seen this comming, inconceivable.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There have been Jihadis in the Sinai area for decades and as far as I am aware these extremist groups have no direct connection with the Brotherhood, never mind EU funding. There are obvious reasons for why this area is so lawless: it's remote location, the tribalism, it's proximity to Gaza, etc.

The Brotherhood is very unpopular with more radical Sunni Muslims. The Salafist Nour party actually supported the ousting of Morsi because they don't see him as a proper Muslim. It was most likely these sorts of guys that carried out this attack.

[Fragony]

What were these 24 who got killed doing than there, foreign fighters or training camps

[Rhyfelwyr]

Most of the 24 killed were off-duty police officers. I haven't heard whether the rebel fighters were foreign or not. Apparently a lot of Palestinian Hamas types operate in the area.

[Hax]

The Salafist Nour party actually supported the ousting of Morsi because they don't see him as a proper Muslim. It was most likely these sorts of guys that carried out this attack.

50 shades of Salafism. Most Salafists reject the use of violence altogether.

EDIT: Also Von Der Dunk is a pretentious git.

[Fragony]

EDIT: Also Von Der Dunk is a pretentious git.

Assume you are refering to this http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/6178/Thomas-von-der-Dunk/article/detail/3490455/2013/08/11/Van-de-Arabische-Lente-is-nauwelijks-nog-iets-over.dhtml

Arab spring in Turkey, lol. Can't believe the Volkskrant doesn't fire this 'historian'

[Fragony]

Ah, Israel is behind the coup, thx for clearing that mr Erdogan. Leftists and europhiles were furious when Wilders called him a 'total freak', but it looks like he is, in fact, a total freak