Egyptian President Overthrown, Constitution Suspended 413
Al Jazeera and other publications are reporting that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has been overthrown by the country's army. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, head of the Egyptian armed forces, said in a televised announcement that Morsi had been removed from power, the Constitution had been suspended, and Adli al-Mansour, leader of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, had been appointed to lead the country until elections can be held. "Sisi called for presidential and parliamentary elections, a panel to review the constitution and a national reconciliation committee that would include youth movements. He said the roadmap had been agreed by a range of political groups." According to the BBC's report, "General Sisi said on state TV that the armed forces could not stay silent and blind to the call of the Egyptian masses," and "The army is currently involved in a show of force, fanning out across Cairo and taking control of the capital."
Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:3, Insightful)
Egypt was a better place back then, center of culture and learning in the world.
Now it's just shit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That'd mean getting rid of Islam... and I can't see a downside here.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the whole conquering / slavery thing was kind of a negative. You're probably not going to get a lot of support for that approach.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the whole conquering / slavery thing was kind of a negative. You're probably not going to get a lot of support for that approach.
It worked just fine for the USA. And now they're the moral and benevolent world police.
Re:Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:4, Funny)
Many of those 'slaves' turned out to be reasonably well paid workers with healthcare.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it's laughing to avoid crying considering how many 'free' american workers have no healthcare, pension, or living wage. They would actually be better off with the deal ancient Egyptian 'slaves' got (but with modern medicine and tech naturally).
Re: (Score:3)
Religion has done nothing but separate people from each other and act as an excuse for mass murder and repression.
Quick, name the religion of the 5 biggest perpetrators of mass murder in human history.
I think I spotted a flaw in your reasoning, if you meant to imply that religion is the cause of people killing one another (as opposed to a justification).
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler -- paganism
Stalin -- atheism
Mao -- Eastern philosophy
Gengis Khan -- Buddhist / Taoist
Attila the Hun -- Arian
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Genghis was Animist. The Mongols eventually adopted Buddhism because it did not conflict with their Animist beliefs. For example one of the laws in the Great Yasa is that people who piss on a water stream are sentenced to death because they are polluting the spirits of the water. The Mongols aren't Taoists. They are probably Tengrists much like Japanese aren't Taoists either since they have Shinto occupying the same position.
Re:Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from the massive holes in your reasoning (ie, the dubious number "hundreds of millions"), youre picking a series of wars that were not onesided but two-sided and occurred over several centuries.
Mao killed 50+ million in a few years. Stalin killed 20+ million civilians in a few years. Hitler killed ~10 million civilians in a few years. Pol Pot killed 2 million in a few years.
Of those, one MIGHT be argued (again very dubiously) to have religious beliefs, and none of them did their killings in the nam
Re:Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you can say that about any religion or person that gives no peace, and Islam is certainly not a unique example of such attitudes for some of its more fanatical adherents. There are people with that attitude in all religions. But to say the religion itself is like that is ridiculous. Compared to what? Centuries of Christian religious war in Europe over sectarian differences, up to and including Northern Ireland's troubles? Buddhists in Myanmar violently attacking minority Muslims? I mean, there's a religion (Buddhism) with the reputation of being awfully peaceful overall, yet you've got some pretty violent fanatics in some places. Empirically, plenty of Muslims don't have the hateful attitude you claim, and same for any other religion you can name. Attitudes vary greatly. Fanatics exist in all of them. And most of the current protest in Egypt is between the more moderate muslims and copt christians not wanting to go in the more fanatical and exclusionary direction that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to go. That's a sign that a lot of people do want to get along, both muslim and not.
All you are doing is tossing any and everyone adhering to a particular religion into one gigantic, "hateful" bin. What's the point of that? None of the religions actually work that simply. Assume the people adhering to a religion (or non-religion) are one big monolithic block and picking the worst to represent it all? Great idea. You're just the kind of bigot that creates the worst problems regardless of the specific religion chosen. Oh, it's "them". "They" are the problem. "They" are all "hateful" and "not peaceful". Thus the justification begins for first not listening to "them", and eventually justifying horrible things to solve "their" problem.
Look at yourself and what you're saying. You're not exactly a paragon of peace either. You're laying the foundation for a lot of hate. It doesn't even matter what your preferred religion is or if you don't have any at all. Your attitude is the real problem because you've blithely written off the adherents of an entire religion for dubious and nonsensical reasons.
If you want, you can now backtrack and say you didn't mean *everybody*. If that's the case, well, a lot of unnecessary ill blood and hatred has started for less stupid comments that people didn't really mean. Maybe you should engage your brain first. It could save people a lot of grief.
Re:Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:4, Interesting)
There's messages of hate all over the place, and some cultural movements have relatively more of it than others.
It is really hard to be objective about judging this, but take in to account some of the books written by Muslim women who describe their experience of mainstream Islam from the inside.
Jew hatred, tribalism, and oppression of women are pretty systemic and global, in their opinion.
At some point, the messages that are being written and taught do influence the mainstream culture. When's the last time you hear of Jains being violent? There are mainstream trends and so far, Jains are at one end, then Buddhists, then Christians and lastly Moslems at the other end.
Another factor is that Islam hasn't had a reformation, and it is Monotheistic (everyone else is wrong). The religions with multiple deities or no deities or deities invoked as psychological exercises of the imagination, will have less of this problem.
The women Moslem authors would like to see a modernised Islam that allows self-criticism, inquiry, and thus greater devotion to good, compassion, and so on, but they are hard-pressed to see where Islam can be divorced from the tribalistic culture it started with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
North Korea is better than Egypt was under the Pharaohs. Different time, different standards.
Re:Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:5, Funny)
Because we don't only know things that we personally experience. For example, I have never seen an elephant and yet I know they are small, furry and good swimmers. I read it in a book.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I have seen an elephant. Some of my best friends are elephants. And you sir, or no elephant.
Re:Bring back the Pharoahs (Score:4, Funny)
They also danced better.
Re: (Score:3)
how about just a strong secular constitution backed by an independent judiciary?
hmm... July 4th might be a good day to declare you're going to do such a thing.
a constitution that can be changed by the president when he feels like it is not worth the paper used to wipe the asses of the people that wrote it.
regarding constitutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that it's precisely in times where upholding the constitution is at it's most important (in times of turmoil), that so many countries do away with the constitution entirely and suspend it?!
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Because constitutions are often flawed, often very flawed. They are not some perfect piece of paper that is immune to error and corruption. I take it that they intend to draft a new one.
Plus, any coup is a de-facto suspension of the constitution, even one like this where it is done with the support of the populace of the country.
Re: regarding constitutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Flawed they may be but the poit is to set the ground rules so people know what to do and have something to look to when things get crazy and emotion runs high. Frankly I agree with the parent, the fact that Egypt can't ride it out until the next election and then replace Morsi having learned a lesson about electing theocrats, suggests to me the nation is unlikely to develop the spine it takes to have a democracy and keep it.
This does not bode well for a free Egypt. Whenever things get wierd form now on the military will just take over.
our state department is doing nothing because they in their usual sort sightedness jus don't want anyone unpredictable near Isreal.
Re: regarding constitutions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: regarding constitutions (Score:5, Interesting)
Flawed they may be but the poit is to set the ground rules so people know what to do and have something to look to when things get crazy and emotion runs high. Frankly I agree with the parent, the fact that Egypt can't ride it out until the next election and then replace Morsi having learned a lesson about electing theocrats, suggests to me the nation is unlikely to develop the spine it takes to have a democracy and keep it .
More likely they realized that if they didn't act soon, they wouldn't be able to act at all.
Read the excellent post on CNN [cnn.com] from Chariman of the History department in Cairo. He viewed Morsy as his President, he really tried.
Quoting:
The Brotherhoodization policy has gone way beyond what is normally expected in any healthy transitional process. In addition to the provincial governors -- who are gradually being replaced by Brotherhood members -- the Police Academy is reportedly being infiltrated by members of the clandestine organization. Within the Ministry of Education, replacements have reached the level of school principals. And the new Minister of Culture has replaced the head of the Cairo Opera House, dismissed the head of the Cairo Ballet Company, the head of the Egyptian Book Authority (the largest government publishing house) , and the director of the National Library and the National Archives. The new appointees have no credentials except being members or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Its quite telling for an Islamic Majority Nation to step back from the Islamification of everyday life. Far from not "riding it out", waiting for an election that would in all likelihood never happen, they demanded Morsy's ouster, and set about bringing to fulfillment the revolution that was hijacked by Islam.
Even in the US, the Declaration of Independence wasn't followed immediately by the Constitution. We had the failed Articles of Confederation, which was barely sufficient to see us through the War of Independence, but couldn't govern the nation in times of Peace. The major difference is our War was so long (9 years) and so brutal that any remaining disagreement wasn't about the political ideology, but rather the apparatus.
Re: (Score:3)
What would you say about a constitution that can be systematically ignored?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Informative)
In this case I'm guessing it's because in 2012 Morsi granted himself pretty much unlimited power and then used it to ram through a crappy constitution that most Egyptians didn't really like. Just spitballing though.
Re:wtf? (Score:5, Informative)
Overwhelmingly Approved? Are you DAFT?
(64% of voters approved of the referendum, but the turnout was only 33% of eligible voters.)
So that's two thirds of the one third that actually voted, or about 20%.
The Muslim brotherhood made sure it was "the right 20%" that got into the poling places.
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Informative)
Because the constitution in question was hastily approved less than a year ago with a lot of controversy and meager support among the populace (64% of people voted yes on the referendum, but the turnout was only 33%). It defines Islam and "principles of Shariah" as "the main source of legislation", which is precisely what many protesters were up in arms against. In short, it's the brainchild of the Islamists, and so any popular revolution against them is going to disregard it as well.
Re: (Score:3)
How is that different from our constitution, which was controversial at the time and had to be initially drafted in secret and defended publicly by anonymous letters to the editor? The people didn't get to vote on it either, as the state government's ratified it after long struggles between supporters and detractors.
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I can't imagine what would have happened if the founding fathers' first attempt [wikipedia.org] at a constitution had been deemed a failure and replaced. The world would be a totally different place.
Because our constitution is enlightened. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a secular document that embodies principles of government conceived by men of sublime genius on the heels of five hundred years of medieval religious terror. It embodies advanced philosophical principles of governance drawn carefully and thoughtfully from the ancients, the 'noble savages' as well as from new philosophies from the age of enlightenment itself (Rousseau). (We are still far from realizing its potential, but it DOES protect us. Mostly.)
The Ottoman Empire never experienced this critical cultural shift. Egypt was a part of it and locked in the middle age darkness until the 20th century. Secular Ba'athism [wikipedia.org] was a half step forward, but it went out with Mubarak. The Army, ever the guardians of Ba'athist ideals, thought the time might be right for pluralism as a way to enter fully into the family of nations... and they hated Mubarak. They let the popular kettle boil, rolled the dice and came up with... Morsi. Feh! The "constitution" that Morsi rammed down the country's throat was an atavistic abomination that drew upon medieval juridical traditions that were outmoded by the 13th century. And which the Ba'athists hate with a passion. (Almost as much as the Jihadis hate the Ba'athists.) Witness that at long last, a hundred years after the last Sultan fell off the Sunni throne, that the former nations of the Ottomans are waking up. Morsi took a democratic ladder to the heights of power then clumsily pulled it up behind him and spat on those below. He now pays the price for his perfidy. The Army, essentially Ba'athist secularists and anathema to the jihadists, want a modern country. Had Morsi been as capable and cautious as Erdogan in Turkey it would have been a different story. But now he is toast. He was always there at their sufferance. They will hold new elections in a year or two and settle back to their barracks. But just as the Turkish army has been staunching the tide of medievalism for almost the last hundred years, so will the Egyptian Army continue to watch.
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's different in that tens of millions of people were sufficiently angry about their constitution to go to the streets.
Constitutions are not magical self-contained documents that work by virtue of their very existence. They do not hold any meaning or weight if they are rejected by the citizens en masse.
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Constitution was accepted unanimously by state representatives at the Convention, and then ratified unanimously by the states.
Plus it is a glorious thing to read, based on the philosophies of the Enlightment and full of brilliant compromises.
The Egyptian constitutional convention was a complete farce in comparison. Rammed through in a classical demonstration of the tyranny of the majority.
The US constitition had nearly ideal circumstances (Score:3, Insightful)
It had the benefit not only from things like the enlightenment, but the men who wrote it had a very particular perspective and background; They were, as a group, generally Protestant Christian (of various degrees of religiosity and various different denominations) which meant that they all shared a common view of basic principles of "right" and "wrong" BUT also a healthy suspicion of government forcing its views onto the individual (the English King and the Church of England had suppressed nearly all of the
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:4, Insightful)
three fifths of all other Persons
That was a provision to weaken the institution of slavery, which was established in the southern colonies prior to the formation of the United States, not a comment on the humanity of the slaves.
Had the slaves been counted fully it would have meant more representatives for southern states to vote in Congress. Had they not been counted at all, the southern states might not have ratified the constitution. Like many things in the constitution it was a compromise, but it ultimately served its purpose.
Besides which, I trust you heard that the abolitionist party in the US, the Republicans, was eventually able to get a president elected who then freed the slaves.
SLAVERY AND THE FOUNDERS [weeklystandard.com]
Re: (Score:3)
from the very brief info bits, apparently women didn't like being oppressed that much: https://twitter.com/Reem_Abdellatif/status/352448757360623616 [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your concerns are misguided. This constitution wasn't *worth* upholding. It's a mishmash concocted by Islamist and other enemies of democracy. They are probably better off if they scrap it and go back to the old one.
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're not starting with a good constitution, preserving it isn't going to help. Egypt's most recent constitution was drafted entirely by Islamists after the secularists and Christians walked out when it was clear it was going to embody Sharia law and other Islamist practices at the expense of human rights.
Re:regarding constitutions (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the act of removing the president in this way is itself a violation of the constitution (I assume). The constitution has to be suspended in order for this extraordinary act to occur.
To give a hypothetical US example: let's say the people elect a President who turns out to be Literally Hitler, and has gotten Congress to back him (just like Hitler). So President Hitler and company prepare to conquer the world by force, much to the horror of the American people and the military. The people take to the streets, and the military leadership does not want to invade Mexico and Canada as ordered.
So, what do we do? The Constitution would have us wait for the next election cycle and vote these people out, but if we obey the constitution millions could be killed. Someone needs to do something, and the military is in the position to do it. The Joint Chiefs, with popular support, declare the Hitler government and congress to be disolved, and charges the Supreme Court with overseeing the creation and installation of a new government, because the Court is the only federal civil authority with any integrity.
None of that is even remotely authorized by the constitution, therefore the military tells us that "the constitution is suspended" in order to cary out this plan. That doesn't mean they go out and start violating every tenant of it, but they do have to violate parts (those which organize the government) in order to make it work.
How to not be overthrown (Score:3, Funny)
Step 1) Spy on your citizens ....
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!
I heard Egypt wants to borrow our constitution (Score:5, Funny)
since we don't seem to be using right now I don't see any problem.
I would laugh... (Score:3)
but it's really not funny.
If I were the Assholes in charge of the US Government, I would be worrying about all that ammo flying off the shelves for the last 7 years or so.
1% of the Taxpayers is not 1% of the population, lol.
I remember when the Constitution was a real Badge of Honor, not something Our Government Wipes its collective Ass on whenever they want.
.
Re:I would laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when the Constitution was a real Badge of Honor, not something Our Government Wipes its collective Ass on whenever they want.
I don't. I just remember when I was more ignorant of history.
Re:I would laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit; I got my initial impressions of my government from my Grandparents more from my Parents.
They lived thru a lot in the 30's and then the War; the government actually helped people that needed help, back then.
The Government back then put people under surveillance, but not everything they said or read or wrote.
I too, was extremely ignorant of a great deal of what happened in the LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan years.
I'm totally amazed that I look back on Clinton as the best Pres so far, lol. I Did Not vote for him. :facepalm:
W. was Cheney/Rumsfeld's sockpuppet; You don't think He decided to land on an aircraft carrier at sea, do you? :)
Read about those guys' involvement in the Nixon era stuff, and the Regan/Iceland BS, Arsenals of Folly is a great book on some of that:
http://www.amazon.com/Arsenals-Folly-Making-Nuclear-Vintage/dp/0375713948 [amazon.com]
Hey, I'd rather have the Prez decorating some Chunky Ho's dress than Wiping Ass with the Constitution.
Maybe it's just me...
Re:I would laugh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit; I got my initial impressions of my government from my Grandparents more from my Parents.
They lived thru a lot in the 30's and then the War; the government actually helped people that needed help, back then.
If you were white. If you weren't, then the 14th Amendment didn't really mean that much for you and thus neither did most of the rest of the Constitution. Nor did it mean much if you were otherwise "unfit," as the history of sterilization of the mentally retarded from that era shows.
It was a time period of conservative judicial activism known as the Lochner era [wikipedia.org] in which laws establishing minimum wage or safe work conditions were struck down as unconstitutional under the dubious theory of "freedom of contract."
It was also a time period in which labor-leaders and other leftists were kept under surveillance by J. Edgar Hoover, who was prepared to round them up at a moment's notice. After all, this was a time period in which union members paid in blood for their views and the government turned a blind eye to private union-busting operations like the American Protective League and the Pinkerton Agency, who ran sabotage and intimidation against people exercising their rights, or just openly sanctioned killing striking workers.
Most of my views of American democracy were informed as a child by what we believed this nation should be. Very little of it was informed by what it actually was, then and now. I think most of us are the same.
Re: (Score:3)
W. was Cheney/Rumsfeld's sockpuppet; You don't think He decided to land on an aircraft carrier at sea, do you? :)
Actually, yes, I do think that W. decided to land on an aircraft carrier at sea. He was a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard and his father was a pretty good naval pilot during WWII. So, it seems pretty likely that the idea of landing on an aircraft carrier at sea would have been his (or at least one that he liked as soon as he heard it). The idea that one of the Bush's was anybody's puppet shows a very poor understanding of the history of the U.S., even for a conspiracy theorists. If your conspiracy t
D'oh! (Score:4, Interesting)
So if the constitution was suspended and the leader of the constitutional court appointed leader, does the first action cancel the potency of the second?
Under the circumstances I'm guessing not, but the irony is at least a little bit tasty.
Constitution Suspended? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny is says the Constitution was Suspended.
Like it was ever a democracy in the first place.
Is there something requiring you to be a democracy in order to have a constitution?
Re: Constitution Suspended? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean the recent free and fair elections weren't democratic?
They voted in a religious fuckwit but that's an unfortunate flaw with democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
That fuckwit took the office, rewrote the constitution for his religious liking and got rid of any judges he didn't like. The problem wasn't the democratic elections, but what happened afterwards.
Re: (Score:3)
One can only hope that their consitution that was drafted a year ago was suspended. Being that Morsi basically gave himself "el presedente" type powers, and imposed islam as the backbone of the country, and sharia law as the "founding law of the land." Yep, I shit you not on that one.
Go ahead and see how well that's worked out in the last year oki? With open attacks on copts, who don't pay the jizya tax. And of course their value only being worth half of that of a muslim. Or the massive upswing in att
Sanity May Yet Prevail (Score:5, Interesting)
While the Egyptian Army is certainly no paragon of freedom (or battle prowess, but that's another story...), at least there is a formidable power in Egypt that leans toward secular sanity and against Islamist lunacy. Egypt could again one day stand with Turkey (for all its troubles) and Jordan as examples of modern, stable states among the insane theocracies that surround them.
Re:Sanity May Yet Prevail (Score:5, Funny)
"Egypt could again one day stand with Turkey (for all its troubles) and Jordan as examples of modern, stable states among the insane theocracies that surround them."
Man, I sure hope North Carolina can do this too.
Re:Sanity May Yet Prevail (Score:5, Funny)
Can females drive in North Carolina?
After going to college for 4 years in North Carolina, I'm pretty confident that no one in that state can drive.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately Turkey is heading in the opposite direction, towards becoming an Islamic state. The Islamists in power have seriously weakened the Turkish army so there is little likelihood that it will be able to step in again to restore secular government. This might be a more or less permanent change.
Re: (Score:3)
Well the way that the islamists have weakened the Turkish army is by rounding up people who helped install a secular government and "making them disappear" after a sham trial.
Re: (Score:3)
The head of the Army (the guy who just deposed Morsi) was a General that Morsi installed after clearing house in 2012.
That trick may have worked in Turkey, but it didn't work in Egypt
Social media cuts both ways (Score:3)
The next post will contain verbatim of the deposed president probable last communication via an official channel: the "Office of Assistant to President of Egypt on Foreign Relations" Facebook account.
Here is the link to the communicate [facebook.com] for those who still have a FB account.
Below is the full text for analysis and comment.
Egypt doesn't have a formal "impeachment" process (Score:4, Informative)
So this is a rather informal one.
It's a coup, but rather a strange one. The people want Morsi gone, the military is moving against him and then handing off power to the people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/03/egypt-morsi-protests-army-deadline/2485355/ [usatoday.com]
Here's a summary of the situation from the point of view of one of the protesters.
Why President Morsi is in Trouble:
A youth leader of the June 30th demonstrations gives us an insider's view of why ordinary Egyptians are in revolt.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-president-morsi-is-in-trouble/?singlepage=true [pjmedia.com]
Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically detest islam in the majority of its forms. But having looked at Egypt for a while, the level of abuse on women, organised or social rape, the deliberate and appalling levels of enforced FGM, and coming to a conclusion that as a people in a general sense, I feel only sorry for the victims, but generally regard most with a deep disdain.
As an aside, this looks to me to have civil war written all over it. But before that, an observation of my own on this. I have zero belief that Islam can fit into modern society. Into democracy. In secularism or into multiculturalism. I don't believe it deserves a seat at the table, nor do I think they actually want a seat unless it comes with all the usual preconditions and appalling islamic fundamentalism.
However, if a person like me - has a theory that I demand or expect islamics to adhere to modern standards, and to put aside some of their normal activities and behaviour and to fall into line and operate on a civil basis in society, take part in democracy, campaign for what they believe and if they can do so in the civil way, perhaps get a deserved place at the table of government - then things in Egypt don't provide any good news. And under normal circumstances I'd welcome the Muslim Brotherhood getting chewed up and spat out. But I can't have it both ways, even with my somewhat harsh line of thought. If they do put down the guns, and do put aside the bombs, and come to play a full part in the democratic processes, then what?
So, the context now is that they win an election (debate that as you see fit), and a number of months later, find the US supported and equipped Army deposes their chosen man and suspends the entire constitution. An awkward pause for me now occurs. If they get excluded and sidelined in this way, it seems to me that this is fuel in the tank for bad stuff. What is the point of elections now to Morsi and this brotherhood. Democracy by its nature has to be inclusive, even to forces or views I dislike. Thats almost the point.
In this instance, I find myself having a tiny amount of sympathy to bad people, whom I normally don't have any sympathy with, as there is an air of injustice and incorrectness about this. I detest Islam and its fundamentalism, BUT, if they put their guns and arms down and come to the table - something I may not like, but may well respect - then their part in it can't be cut off like this - at least thats a vague feeling I have. But I know that the Muslim Brotherhood are scum, and I know only idiots would vote for them. Bingo - look what happened. Idiots and then the MB got elected.
In the end tho, Its Egypt. Its a state where this is the picture across its society.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/unkindest-cut-13yearolds-death-shines-spotlight-on-rise-of-fgm-in-egypt-8657104.html [standard.co.uk]
There is no escape. The men are involved. The women. The mothers. There are no innocents in this appalling crime against humanity, and against women in particular. And against the young girls, often under age, who are forcably held down and have their sexual organs butchered in full 7th century barbarism. The fact that the women are often involved in the infliction of this crime only erodes all respect. Despicable, and beyond contempt. It doesn't matter who gets into Government over such people. Its very hard for me to find sympathy for these fucking people. Their behaviour is worse than animals. Their choice of 'leadership' is a reflection of the people as a whole. Normally it is said that to correct fundamental problems - in a society, the advancement of women is critical. I have no problem with that, ... but these women.. there is a black hole here where an education and care for their own siblings should be.
The calls for 'freedom' or 'democracy' really become meaningless. Human rights? Yeah - as if anyone a citizen of such a place t
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, they also seem to like raping Western female reporters [smh.com.au]. How many does this make in the past year? I can NAME three, and seem to recall a couple more. From "We want democracy, let's rape journalists!" to "yay, we won, let's rape journalists!", and now to "we don't like the self-imposed perversion of democracy we got, send more journalists for us to rape!"
But of course, they don't limit themselves to just [www.cbc.ca]
Path to democracy is not straightforward (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is "We don't really want to get dragged into bringing Peace And Democracy to yet another sandbox hellhole" not a consistent policy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be naive. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any less involved in what's going on there.
Re: (Score:3)
That didn't make sense. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any more involved in what's going on there.
Re:US credibility overthrown too (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be naive. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any less involved in what's going on there.
Somehow I don't think "installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt" is the absolute least involved the U.S. could get.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm tired of "don't be naive" as an excuse for conspiracy theories that have no support in evidence. If we ruled Egypt they would have a liberal secular democracy and a large free trade zone with Israel. They would have been strongly in support of the invasion of Iraq and sent troops as part of the "coalition of the willing". We give money to the Egyptian Army and have some influence over them, that's about it.
I don't know, what should we do? (Score:4, Insightful)
So Obama throws Mubarak under the bus so Egypt can have democracy, now he supports a military coup to remove a democratically elected leader by the same military that used to keep Mubarak in power. Way to have a consistent foreign policy, chief.
Really, the only inconsistency was favoring democratically elected officials that don't like us in the first place. Pretty much the sum of all US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era is "find the biggest strongman that will play nice with us and put in charge of the rabble that doesn't." The history of the Middle East and South America during the Cold War is pretty much this story cloned and stamped over and over again.
In this situation, I'm not really sure what the best policy is. As much as I dislike realpolitik and prefer letting democracies elect people who don't like us over the strongman policy, Syria has turned into a huge clusterf--k that is probably about to boil over into a decades-long sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict, and if this will ensure a more stable transition in Egypt, then I guess I'm going to have to grudgingly accept it. If it doesn't, though, I can't even summon up the feeling that I'll be able to say, "I told you so."
I feel absolutely nauseated to consider the notion that letting the military run things may result in more freedom than letting popularly elected President do it, but we've got decades of Turkish politics to weigh in as evidence on that. I just don't know. Maybe once the trolls get sorted out in this thread, we'll get some good discussion from people closer to the ground on this. I guess I'll cross my fingers and hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case. Seems the recent theocracy wasn't actually any good at the nuts and bolts of running a country - and people to expect the government of a fairly modern country to provide basic services. Or at least that's how I interpret the army's statement that a "technocrat, capable national government will be formed" (quoting Al-Jaz).
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Interesting)
Question for me is, will they replace it with something more effective? Technocratic benevolent dictatorships are a lot more attractive on paper than they turn out to be in real life.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power? I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election. (And given the shenanigans that show up in the US, I'm not going to throw too many stones. They're different, in both kind and degree, but we're hardly beyond reproach.)
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Technocratic benevolent dictatorships are a lot more attractive on paper than they turn out to be in real life.
Nobody but you said anything about "benevolent dictatorship". The Egyption Army is using the phrase "technocratic" as a code word that means "non-Islamic". The current government in Egypt has no actual skills for government, other than "be fanatic Islamicists and use the Quran as the guide for all things", and I personally am dubious as to the value of that one.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power?
No, they won't. The uprising is because the government was a de-facto Islamic theocracy, and the majority of the people don't want that.
I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election.
The election had two candidates, one who was associated with the repressive Mubarak government, and Morsi. Morsi seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises: he said "sure I'm the Islamic candidate, but I'll respect the rights of non-Islamic people." Then he broke his promises. Thus, the whole "technocratic" thing: the Army and the people are looking to install a secular government.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Funny)
seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises ... Then he broke his promises.
I'm glad we don't tolerate that kind of crap in the good old US of A!
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not to say democracy in the US is perfect, just that voters have more faith in the process than they do in overriding the process, while Egyptians have more of a reason to trust protests and overthrowing the government than elections.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Being politely voted out of the White House is not the same as being thrown out by the military. Gives no incentive for the next guy to hold onto his words.
As Seneca the Younger [wikiquote.org] said: "Ius est in armis, opprimit leges timor" (Might is right, fear oppresses laws). This applies mostly to those who consider themselves rulers.
Or, according to Lucius Accius [wikiquote.org]: "Oderint, dum metuant" (Let them hate, as long as they fear). This applies mostly to those who are ruled.
Ancient wisdoms which still apply, whether you're referring to Egypt or the USA, or just about anywhere.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they won't. The uprising is because the government was a de-facto Islamic theocracy, and the majority of the people don't want that.
Measuring "will of the people" by "how big is today's mob" is a poor substitute for the ballot box. Having a military that allows the people to control things only to the extent that the military likes what is going on is a poor substitute for rule of law.
Morsi seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises: he said "sure I'm the Islamic candidate, but I'll respect the rights of non-Islamic people." Then he broke his promises.
Oh, well, never mind then. He broke campaign promises. This is clearly sufficient grounds to have a military coup, and it has never happened in any political system prior to this. Maybe Morsi can be sent to some nice prison somewhere, like the one at Gitmo. Which apparently was closed five years ago, according to my government source. Who certainly would never lie about such a thing.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Interesting)
Quick Q. Why are you defending a leader that by all accounts was bad at his job, and lied to get elected. Yes he "won" the election but his opponent was a puppet of the last regime. The turn out was only 33%. That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices. It sounds like the people already spoke once by boycotting the election.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick Q. Why are you defending a leader...
I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that counting noses in a mob isn't a good way to determine "will of the people", and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices.
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
It sounds like the people already spoke once by boycotting the election.
Or they didn't vote for any of a thousand other reasons, just like people in the US sometimes don't vote for any number of reasons. The la
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Insightful)
and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
He made a power grab. Created a constitutional declaration that gave himself unprecedented powers. That's a touch more egregious than "breaking campaign promises".
It had to be nipped in the bud before he made himself and the Muslim Brotherhood unassailable, which is what he was obviously doing. If he'd been a touch more subtle and patient about things it might have worked.
For me, concern for democracy would be better placed in the spirit of it than the letter, especially with a dodgy leader with a dodgy mandate making a dodgy power grab.
Well done the Egyptians I say. I hope they get the effective secular government that they've worked and sacrificed for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Informative)
No it wouldn't have worked. Look at the economy. The reason they are having power cuts is because the country is just about out of money. When Mubark was overthrown, Egypt had 30 billion in foreign reserves. Those are dropping steadily, in one year they've been cut it in half AND at the same time they've reduced wheat stockpiles 3/4 and are at the point of begging Oman for fuel.
The wheat harvest should total out a couple percent higher than last year but it won't come close to meeting the needs of the subsidized bread the poor are dependent on. They'll burn through the remaining money in a matter of months buying wheat to meet those subsidies.
Without the subsidized bread (sold for about 0.08 cents) several million people will starve to death. People starving to death are generally very disruptive to society. During the last Egyptian bread riots they nearly ended up in a civil war.
To compound the matter tourism is dead, it was Egypts only serious generator of foreign cash and the Islamists destroyed it in short order. Hell Morisi appointed an Islamist that leads an organization that killed several dozen tourists to be the governor of the area where tourism is the biggest. The incompetence of the administration boggles the mind.
If something isn't done right now the country is going to disintegrate into some of the worst violence the country has ever seen due to the intersection of several major issues (bread, currency, fuel, etc). The problem is the Muslim Brotherhood is more interested in doing things to cement their own rule and institute their own moral view than to stabilize the country. It's unfortunate but if the Army didn't step in now it would end far worse than it will by forcing the Islamists out (and the resulting damage that will do, they comprise better than 1/5th of the population). It's a bad situation and the smart Egyptians with means are getting out of the country while they can.
Re: (Score:3)
If the neighborhood bully tells you there is a choice between him making you eat dirt, and dog poop. Sure you might vote for the dirt, but that doesn't really make it your choice. IF you have an opportunity to kick that bully in the balls and go get an ice cream cone instead, I say good for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Please understand that I do not think a military dictatorship is a good thing. It's just that, in the case of Egypt at the pr
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Informative)
That seems a pretty gross exaggeration of public sentiment in Egypt, the problem, at its core, is that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood cohorts won the slimmest of majorities (just over 51%), and instead of recognizing the somewhat tenuous situation they were in and moderating their activities, they basically went all out to seize control of the constitution, various local governments and the judiciary, with the clear intent of assuring a narrow islamist form of Shariah was the law of the land.
To many of the 2012 protesters, reformers, and most importantly there Egyptian Army, this was directly opposed to what they had intended. Many feared, and not entirely without justification that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were going to take a page from Ayatollah Khomeini's play book and use the reformist zeal to put in place a strongly theocratic and autocratic government.
I'll say this about it, when something like a third of any nation's populace signs a petition demanding the government reign, I would suggest to that government that it shelve more controversial policies and try to find a new accommodation with the oppositon., or one way or the other shit will hit the fan.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right, but there was no legal mechanism to force the ballot box in the time span it appeared to be needed so this happen to create one. I do not support military coups but I do believe this action stopped Egypt from becoming a Syria.
As for Egypt's military- I am more then impressed with them. In the last uprising, they positioned themselves between the government supporters with firearms and the protesters with sticks, stones, and signs. They stopped a lot of senseless bloodshed from happening and stopped the situation from entering a Syria type rebellion. The situation has rose to the top again and the Egyptian military is once again, fighting strongly to save lives. You may not agree with them, but For what it's worth, I salute them.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's one of the more impressive tells; there is a general will to avoid violence, rather than other places where it seems there's no shortage of people eager for a fight. The MB may have just underestimated the collective intelligence of Egypt's people, or just failed to recognise it altogether. The people don't seem to want an "I win, you lose" mode of problem solving. They seem to have managed the largest fairly peaceful demonstration in history, got a result, and seem in a way comfortable with a bit of creative but peaceful chaos. That's maybe more essential to democracy than ballot boxes.
Re: (Score:3)
O.O
Holy mother of jebus I want one.
Where can I buy one of those?
Can I borrow the Egyptian army this weekend plz?
"advocates the supremacy of technical experts'. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businesspeople, and economists."
I have government wood.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power?
The support for the Muslim Brotherhood dwindled as soon as they were in power and actually acted. That's when people saw that they were not as awesome as they thought. And the Muslim Brotherhood learned they are actually being held accountable for their governing.
I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election. (And given the shenanigans that show up in the US, I'm not going to throw too many stones. They're different, in both kind and degree, but we're hardly beyond reproach.)
Yes, you don't just overthrow a elected government by a coup just because you disagree with them. But if there is wide-spread violence from both sides, over a longer period of time, and you exhaust all other options including a ultimatum, it is the job of the army to step in and prevent a civil war.
A new election will be held. Egypt is new at this. Give them some time. The dedication of the Egyptian people is exemplary, they want a better state for themselves. It's a historic chance, but it is a process.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Informative)
That seems to be the view echoed in this extensive post on CNN by a History professor in Cairo [cnn.com] which interesting reading, but probably too long for the average slashdot-er.
TL:DR: he held his nose but hoped for the best when Morsy became President, but simply couldn't stand the "'Brotherhoodization" of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood had systematically replaced every level of government right down to School Principals with unqualified followers.
I'd been watching the stream for hours when cheering an fireworks broke out, and upon looking to Twitter found that the Army had replaced the Muslim Brotherhood leadership with a representative of the Supreme Court. Every military chopper that went overhead was also loudly cheered. Contrary to how CNN is presenting this, it is clearly a popular turn of events.
Egypt may have stepped back from the brink of becoming yet another Islamic Religious Dictatorship.
Re:Overthrowing the NSA. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case.
Wag the dog... It's the same bit of manipulation as 'Arab Spring'... The 'will of the people' put Morsi (Mursi?) into office
There was precious little choice at the time.
They have learned their lesson, and for once it seems the average person in the street has had enough of 'Brotherhoodization" of their democracy.
For an Islamic majority country to take this step is a pretty positive note if you ask me.
Re:news for nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:news for nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah thats right baby
You do realize that the protests leading up to this overthrow were the most massive in human history?
The numbers bandied about were anywhere from 20-35 million in the streets. At least 22 million signed a petition denouncing Morsi.
With a population of 82M, that's anywhere from 25-40% of the country's populace. If even 1/10 of that number (much less %) got out on the streets in the USA, there'd be dozens of /. posts as it impacted the largest block of slashdotters on a daily basis.
Furthermore, Egypt is keyholder of the Suez canal. Instability in this country would be like instability in Panama - and impact world trade.
I'd say this is news for nerds.
Re:news for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
There were laser pointers.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but since then he has made more power grabs and less reforms than people are comfortable with. On the one hand, I don't see that not producing enough jobs is cause to overthrow the government, on the other, there has been real concern of a significant shift towards institutionalized Islam in Egypt.
Re:Didn't they just elect this guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, they elected a Muslim Brotherhood guy who made election campaign statements like
'"The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal" [businessinsider.com]
Now they found it shocking that the guy is just a tiny bit of an Islamic fanatic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Is a walking sack of shit - when asked about FGM he declared 'that is between a mother and daughter'.
Such fucking animals are worthless.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't Egypt use a King?
He was acting rather Kingly, in the old oppressive model (unlike the dopey harmless old people model used around Europe and southeast Asia these days) ~14 million Egyptians called out, "Help! Help! We're being oppressed" and the army removed the threat rather efficaciously. The army has learned, too, they don't want to be in charge and blamed if anything goes tits-up. Tough job for that Head of the (now suspended) Constitutional Court.