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
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
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
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 13:30 07-03-2013
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.
So, looks like MoMo's presidency is done for.
*plays the world's smallest violin*
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 for those who have the interest and time.
The Stranger 20:26 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by 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
Tell us all-knowing, all-wise, Frag the Omniscient, tell us!
Major Robert Dump 20:55 07-03-2013
yay for more gang rapes
HoreTore 20:55 07-03-2013
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 20:59 07-03-2013
It's happened.
"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 21:58 07-03-2013
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.
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 22:07 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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 22:39 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
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
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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 23:11 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by :
Bit more complex than that, you have to admit.
Wonder what Erdogan makes of all this.
And Thein Sein...
Rhyfelwyr 23:23 07-03-2013
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 23:26 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by 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.
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 23:39 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.
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 23:48 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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 23:52 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by :
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 23:57 07-03-2013
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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.
Originally Posted by :
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 00:01 07-04-2013
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
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 00:04 07-04-2013
Originally Posted by :
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 00:09 07-04-2013
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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 00:12 07-04-2013
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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 00:19 07-04-2013
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
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 00:24 07-04-2013
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
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.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO