Egypt crisis: Interim president sworn in after Morsi ousted

[antfish]

'Setback for Democracy': World Leaders Critical of Egyptian Coup

Leaders in Europe and elsewhere have expressed dismay at the coup which saw the Egyptian military topple the country's president on Wednesday night. Some are warning that it sets a "dangerous precedent" that could happen again.

Wednesday night's coup d'etat by the Egyptian military that toppled Mohammed Morsi as the country's Islamist leader and installed a temporary civilian government has been described as a "serious setback for democracy" by Germany. Leaders across Europe have expressed concern over the development, which saw the ouster of a democratic government just one year after Morsi took office

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/european-leaders-warn-of-setback-to-democracy-after-egypt-coup-a-909447.html

Dangerous president more like.

One facepalm is not enough, so here's two. How on earth can getting rid of a president who presided over ethnic cleansing of Egypt's Christians, a rape epidemic and the clear intent to base a constitution on Sharia law be considered a setback for democracy?! The original election, in which 20% of the population voted and held so quickly that no coherent opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood being given chance to establish was hardly democratic. It may take decades if not hundreds of years to get anything resembling true democracy to develop in the middle east, in the meantime a secular dictator is the lesser evil.

you will never learn how democracy works if you think its okay to start a coup if you don't like the election outcome and the economy is currently not so bright.

as for the "rape epidemic" i heard of dozens of rape cases that happen during the latest protests. when the anti morsi mob was on the street.

Edited July 6, 2013 by antfish

[Publicus]

I think it's more of the revolution that began with the people en masse precipitating the fall of Mubarak. Even more people turned out the past week to enable the removal of Morsi and the Brotherhood. The French Revolution it ain't, but this isn't 1789 either.

Protesters In Tahrir Square Have A Message For Everyone Around The World Calling This A 'Coup'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/egyptian-protesters-say-its-not-a-coup-2013-7#ixzz2YFfL70Ys

[antfish]

I think it's more of the revolution that began with the people en masse precipitating the fall of Mubarak. Even more people turned out the past week to enable the removal of Morsi and the Brotherhood. The French Revolution it ain't, but this isn't 1789 either.

Protesters In Tahrir Square Have A Message For Everyone Around The World Calling This A 'Coup'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/egyptian-protesters-say-its-not-a-coup-2013-7#ixzz2YFfL70Ys

if a laser show says so ...

elected president gets overthrown by the military ... that is still a coup in my book.

[antfish]

As usual, the United States gets the grief. The anti-coup statement by the Europeans seems to mean nothing to the reformers of Egypt.

Anyway, this is a different take on what has occurred that is worthy of consideration.

Its A Revolution. Not A Coup, Mr. Obama! | Egypts Al-Tahrir newspaper has a front-page message (in English) for President Obama

http://truth11.com/2013/07/05/its-a-revolution-not-a-coup-mr-obama-egypts-al-tahrir-newspaper-has-a-front-page-message-in-english-for-president-obama/

http://truth11.com seems to be a very insightful website.

thanks for sharing your sources.

[lemoncake]

The ideology of the strongman dictator is bankrupt. This is the 21st century. You must like Thaksin too, which is your choice if so. And, by logical extension, you must like the CCP as well, which would not be good or acceptable.

I'd add that Europe and the United States can pontificate about coups with good reason. The coup in Thailand led to nothing good. This coup in Egypt does establish a terrible precedent and, as in the instance of Thailand in 2006, has the support of the middle class.

In the instance of Egypt, as with Thailand, the choice is always between the lesser of two evils. Hobson's choice is too common but real, banal. Let's hope the coup in Egypt turns out better than the coup in Thailand did. But we can only hope. Unfortunately, it's a roll of the dice.

Many are not ready for independent thinking, many can not handle the freedom, Russia,Thailand, Iraq just to name a few are prime examples of that.

None of the Arab countries which went through the Spring or whatever you want to call it, ended up being in a better position.

All of them have gone backwards rather then forward with rise in extremism and violence.

The so called Arab Spring is a process. Presently, the process is most important to the outcome. People learn while they are processing and experiencing a process. The alternative view is one of no vision, no optimism, no realistic assessment of the present or future.

The opposite view, that of the historical strongman, is reactionary and defeatist.

I guess all the countries i mentioned still going through the process, some 30 or so years later, perhaps another 100 and might get there.

In essence, those countries were not ready and still are not, just as Egypt and the rest of the Arab region.

You can add additives to apple to grow faster but in the end you have a poisoned apple and it does not taste anywhere near as good as naturally grown one

[Steely Dan]

The ideology of the strongman dictator is bankrupt. This is the 21st century. You must like Thaksin too, which is your choice if so. And, by logical extension, you must like the CCP as well, which would not be good or acceptable.

I'd add that Europe and the United States can pontificate about coups with good reason. The coup in Thailand led to nothing good. This coup in Egypt does establish a terrible precedent and, as in the instance of Thailand in 2006, has the support of the middle class.

In the instance of Egypt, as with Thailand, the choice is always between the lesser of two evils. Hobson's choice is too common but real, banal. Let's hope the coup in Egypt turns out better than the coup in Thailand did. But we can only hope. Unfortunately, it's a roll of the dice.

Many are not ready for independent thinking, many can not handle the freedom, Russia,Thailand, Iraq just to name a few are prime examples of that.

None of the Arab countries which went through the Spring or whatever you want to call it, ended up being in a better position.

All of them have gone backwards rather then forward with rise in extremism and violence.

The so called Arab Spring is a process. Presently, the process is most important to the outcome. People learn while they are processing and experiencing a process. The alternative view is one of no vision, no optimism, no realistic assessment of the present or future.

The opposite view, that of the historical strongman, is reactionary and defeatist.

If the choice is between a secular dictator and religious fascism then a dictator is the least bad option, who knows you may even end up with a benevolent one such as Ataturk. To paraphrase Ayaan Hirsi Ali democracy is an alien concept in the middle east, it requires compromise when the psyche of the people is that compromise shows weakness, hence whoever 'wins' by default crushes whoever loses. Does anybody actually believe you can ever reach a consensus between Salafists and secularists, some of whom are women aspiring to have the rights and freedoms afforded to women elsewhere?

[antfish]

If the choice is between a secular dictator and religious fascism then a dictator is the least bad option, who knows you may even end up with a benevolent one such as Ataturk. To paraphrase Ayaan Hirsi Ali democracy is an alien concept in the middle east, it requires compromise when the psyche of the people is that compromise shows weakness, hence whoever 'wins' by default crushes whoever loses. Does anybody actually believe you can ever reach a consensus between Salafists and secularists, some of whom are women aspiring to have the rights and freedoms afforded to women elsewhere?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali said what exactly about democracies in the middle east? is she pro military coups because democracy is alien to them?

[Publicus]

Dictatorship is not the natural order of things any more than absolute monarchy is the natural order of things. Divine right of kings is out the window too, long ago. Separation of church and state is a proven successful principle and practice.

Also, in response to another post, convincing those in absolute opposition to your views is not necessarily the object of democracy, although through the democratic process one can attempt to do so. The essence of democracy is a peaceful transition of government power and authority by means of a process, and a thing, we call democracy. You lose this election, you accept that electoral defeat to work toward winning the next election. As obvious as it is, that's the goal and purpose, the principle, that civil societies need exposure to, developing societies especially.

There's a great deal of historical momentum against democracy in favor of strongmen and the view that the ordinary people are of low intelligence and have immutable attitudes. The argument that ordinary people are of low intelligence is only a self-fulfilling - and a self-serving - prophecy. We also have learned there aren't any such things as immutable attitudes, that deeply rooted historical attitudes can and are overcome, surpassed, surmounted. What applied post World War I doesn't necessarily apply virtually a hundred years later, in the early 21st century.

There is some encouraging history, for sure. The 1945 popular coup that removed Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas and established a democracy is one example of a revolutionary coup. Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by "people power" and a revolutionary coup that led to a democracy the Philippines continues to enjoy. If the French Revolution were to occur in the present, Egypt the past few days is how it would have happened.

The real challenge and the real value in the present ME circumstance is thus to advance the democratic process by establishing the institutional foundations to support democracy and democratic society, culture, civilization. The easy way out is to make the old and tired arguments, i.e., to be reactionary, as opposed to being forward looking..

[antfish]

Arab leaders happy to see Morsi gone

BEIRUT — Arab leaders from Saudi Arabia to Syria rushed Thursday to congratulate Egypt for deposing its elected Muslim Brotherhood president, signaling a rare moment of unity in the divided and still overwhelmingly undemocratic region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-leaders-happy-to-see-morsi-gone/2013/07/04/3878cede-e4d8-11e2-bffd-37a36ddab820_singlePage.html?tid=obinsite

That comes with no surprise as almost all of these sunni states and petro monarchies are reign by unelected rulers. they fear democracy and peoples vote.

[Steely Dan]

If the choice is between a secular dictator and religious fascism then a dictator is the least bad option, who knows you may even end up with a benevolent one such as Ataturk. To paraphrase Ayaan Hirsi Ali democracy is an alien concept in the middle east, it requires compromise when the psyche of the people is that compromise shows weakness, hence whoever 'wins' by default crushes whoever loses. Does anybody actually believe you can ever reach a consensus between Salafists and secularists, some of whom are women aspiring to have the rights and freedoms afforded to women elsewhere?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali said what exactly about democracies in the middle east? is she pro military coups because democracy is alien to them?

She was born in Somali. gained asylum in the Netherlands where she became an MP. Here is an interview from December last year.

[lemoncake]

Dictatorship is not the natural order of things any more than absolute monarchy is the natural order of things. Divine right of kings is out the window too, long ago. Separation of church and state is a proven successful principle and practice.

Also, in response to another post, convincing those in absolute opposition to your views is not necessarily the object of democracy, although through the democratic process one can attempt to do so. The essence of democracy is a peaceful transition of government power and authority by means of a process, and a thing, we call democracy. You lose this election, you accept that electoral defeat to work toward winning the next election. As obvious as it is, that's the goal and purpose, the principle, that civil societies need exposure to, developing societies especially.

There's a great deal of historical momentum against democracy in favor of strongmen and the view that the ordinary people are of low intelligence and have immutable attitudes. The argument that ordinary people are of low intelligence is only a self-fulfilling - and a self-serving - prophecy. We also have learned there aren't any such things as immutable attitudes, that deeply rooted historical attitudes can and are overcome, surpassed, surmounted. What applied post World War I doesn't necessarily apply virtually a hundred years later, in the early 21st century.

There is some encouraging history, for sure. The 1945 popular coup that removed Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas and established a democracy is one example of a revolutionary coup. Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by "people power" and a revolutionary coup that led to a democracy the Philippines continues to enjoy. If the French Revolution were to occur in the present, Egypt the past few days is how it would have happened.

The real challenge and the real value in the present ME circumstance is thus to advance the democratic process by establishing the institutional foundations to support democracy and democratic society, culture, civilization. The easy way out is to make the old and tired arguments, i.e., to be reactionary, as opposed to being forward looking..

I really admire your ideology and theory on democracy, which no doubt works in theory really well.

IN REALITY however things are very different, especially when it comes to the region.

Show me ONE Arab or Muslim state which has democracy? or ever had one?

Most of the time, they despise anything and everything Western, from our way of life to our way of thinking and you want them to adopt the very same thing they despise?

They hate each other even more than they hate the West. Look at all the sectarian violence.

The region is always at war of some kind, extremism is on the rise more than ever.

Do you really believe loosing side will accept loosing and allow another sector to rule? or winning sector will start to respect loosing sector? The answer is NO.

You could say, next generation, but who are the jihadist? 20 year olds, so we can safely rule out changes in our life time, i have serious doubts that their kids would have a different thinking, when father has been teaching nothing but hate.

The only Arab countries who prosper are the ones under some form of dictatorship, because it seems to be the only way to rule in the region.

[antfish]

If the choice is between a secular dictator and religious fascism then a dictator is the least bad option, who knows you may even end up with a benevolent one such as Ataturk. To paraphrase Ayaan Hirsi Ali democracy is an alien concept in the middle east, it requires compromise when the psyche of the people is that compromise shows weakness, hence whoever 'wins' by default crushes whoever loses. Does anybody actually believe you can ever reach a consensus between Salafists and secularists, some of whom are women aspiring to have the rights and freedoms afforded to women elsewhere?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali said what exactly about democracies in the middle east? is she pro military coups because democracy is alien to them?

She was born in Somali. gained asylum in the Netherlands where she became an MP. Here is an interview from December last year.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lied in her visa application for the Netherlands. Thats why she isn't an MP anymore, not even dutch anymore.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ab_1202757353

She makes a living out of feeding the islamophobic feels in the west. She talks like a black Pamela Geller.

And no surprise she even sympathies with Anders Behring Breivik.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/05/ayaan-hirsi-ali-sympathizes-with-terrorist-anders-behring-breivik/

Edited July 7, 2013 by Scott

[antfish]

Dictatorship is not the natural order of things any more than absolute monarchy is the natural order of things. Divine right of kings is out the window too, long ago. Separation of church and state is a proven successful principle and practice.

Also, in response to another post, convincing those in absolute opposition to your views is not necessarily the object of democracy, although through the democratic process one can attempt to do so. The essence of democracy is a peaceful transition of government power and authority by means of a process, and a thing, we call democracy. You lose this election, you accept that electoral defeat to work toward winning the next election. As obvious as it is, that's the goal and purpose, the principle, that civil societies need exposure to, developing societies especially.

There's a great deal of historical momentum against democracy in favor of strongmen and the view that the ordinary people are of low intelligence and have immutable attitudes. The argument that ordinary people are of low intelligence is only a self-fulfilling - and a self-serving - prophecy. We also have learned there aren't any such things as immutable attitudes, that deeply rooted historical attitudes can and are overcome, surpassed, surmounted. What applied post World War I doesn't necessarily apply virtually a hundred years later, in the early 21st century.

There is some encouraging history, for sure. The 1945 popular coup that removed Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas and established a democracy is one example of a revolutionary coup. Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by "people power" and a revolutionary coup that led to a democracy the Philippines continues to enjoy. If the French Revolution were to occur in the present, Egypt the past few days is how it would have happened.

The real challenge and the real value in the present ME circumstance is thus to advance the democratic process by establishing the institutional foundations to support democracy and democratic society, culture, civilization. The easy way out is to make the old and tired arguments, i.e., to be reactionary, as opposed to being forward looking..

I really admire your ideology and theory on democracy, which no doubt works in theory really well.

IN REALITY however things are very different, especially when it comes to the region.

Show me ONE Arab or Muslim state which has democracy? or ever had one?

Most of the time, they despise anything and everything Western, from our way of life to our way of thinking and you want them to adopt the very same thing they despise?

They hate each other even more than they hate the West. Look at all the sectarian violence.

The region is always at war of some kind, extremism is on the rise more than ever.

Do you really believe loosing side will accept loosing and allow another sector to rule? or winning sector will start to respect loosing sector? The answer is NO.

You could say, next generation, but who are the jihadist? 20 year olds, so we can safely rule out changes in our life time, i have serious doubts that their kids would have a different thinking, when father has been teaching nothing but hate.

The only Arab countries who prosper are the ones under some form of dictatorship, because it seems to be the only way to rule in the region.

"Show me ONE Arab or Muslim state which has democracy? or ever had one? "

Egypt had one, until the coup this week.

other big countries with a large muslim population are democracies, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey for example.

Hillary Clinton, called Indonesia a role model of democracy.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indonesia-can-be-democratic-role-model-hillary/article2290301.ece

[lemoncake]

Dictatorship is not the natural order of things any more than absolute monarchy is the natural order of things. Divine right of kings is out the window too, long ago. Separation of church and state is a proven successful principle and practice.

Also, in response to another post, convincing those in absolute opposition to your views is not necessarily the object of democracy, although through the democratic process one can attempt to do so. The essence of democracy is a peaceful transition of government power and authority by means of a process, and a thing, we call democracy. You lose this election, you accept that electoral defeat to work toward winning the next election. As obvious as it is, that's the goal and purpose, the principle, that civil societies need exposure to, developing societies especially.

There's a great deal of historical momentum against democracy in favor of strongmen and the view that the ordinary people are of low intelligence and have immutable attitudes. The argument that ordinary people are of low intelligence is only a self-fulfilling - and a self-serving - prophecy. We also have learned there aren't any such things as immutable attitudes, that deeply rooted historical attitudes can and are overcome, surpassed, surmounted. What applied post World War I doesn't necessarily apply virtually a hundred years later, in the early 21st century.

There is some encouraging history, for sure. The 1945 popular coup that removed Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas and established a democracy is one example of a revolutionary coup. Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by "people power" and a revolutionary coup that led to a democracy the Philippines continues to enjoy. If the French Revolution were to occur in the present, Egypt the past few days is how it would have happened.

The real challenge and the real value in the present ME circumstance is thus to advance the democratic process by establishing the institutional foundations to support democracy and democratic society, culture, civilization. The easy way out is to make the old and tired arguments, i.e., to be reactionary, as opposed to being forward looking..

I really admire your ideology and theory on democracy, which no doubt works in theory really well.

IN REALITY however things are very different, especially when it comes to the region.

Show me ONE Arab or Muslim state which has democracy? or ever had one?

Most of the time, they despise anything and everything Western, from our way of life to our way of thinking and you want them to adopt the very same thing they despise?

They hate each other even more than they hate the West. Look at all the sectarian violence.

The region is always at war of some kind, extremism is on the rise more than ever.

Do you really believe loosing side will accept loosing and allow another sector to rule? or winning sector will start to respect loosing sector? The answer is NO.

You could say, next generation, but who are the jihadist? 20 year olds, so we can safely rule out changes in our life time, i have serious doubts that their kids would have a different thinking, when father has been teaching nothing but hate.

The only Arab countries who prosper are the ones under some form of dictatorship, because it seems to be the only way to rule in the region.

"Show me ONE Arab or Muslim state which has democracy? or ever had one? "

Egypt had one, until the coup this week.

other big countries with a large muslim population are democracies, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey for example.

Hillary Clinton, called Indonesia a role model of democracy.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indonesia-can-be-democratic-role-model-hillary/article2290301.ece

I suppose you can call anything a democracy if it does not have a meaning.

None of the countries you mentioned have any democracy, all ruled by intimidation,

Just because PM or President was voted, it does not make them democratic countries.

Egypt was not a democracy as it was ruled by one man with no regard for the people or the government. He did try to use force but failed ONLY because army did not support him

In Turkey, journalists get jailed for speaking out, army general get arrested for opposing.

Same happens in Indonesia and even more so in Bangladesh

Edited July 7, 2013 by lemoncake

[Scott]

Lemoncake, you asked for an answer and you got one.

This topic is about Egypt, stick to that discussion, please.

[Publicus]

The fundamental problem in Egypt in the election of a year ago was that too many of the people who showed up en masse to topple Mubarak went home after the job was done and, rightfully feeling a sense of real accomplishment, stayed home. We see in Thailand that actual democrats point out to the population that democracy means more than voting on election day, polling day as some call it - that it means constant vigilance and active participation during the term of the government.

In Egypt a year ago the election was dominated by the highly organized and structured, purpose-bent Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow travelers. The new election, I am confident, will see the mass of the middle class who last week filled Tahrir Square and the streets of Cairo go to the polls to vote to elect a moderate president and then a moderate parliament. I don't expect the mass of the middle class to stay home the next time around - it seems clear they have learned their lesson about voting as opposed to staying home.

The challenge will be to actually have a new election as the Brotherhood, now realizing it can neither get elected nor govern when it had been elected, will attempt to create a chaos that would preclude an election or make an election a bloody and fearful event.

Egypt, the ancient center of Middle East civilization, has shown the very real potential to establish the first viable democracy in the ME, one that is similar to the legitimate Muslim democracies of SE Asia, e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia and immediately next door to the ME, Turkey (which is having its own growing pains against the willful strongman Erdogan).

I see it's the case that some here, when we point our forefinger at the moon and at Mars, say our fingernails need clipping. They need a more healthy perspective and a longer view that is rooted in reality rather than in the short-sighted and easy to assume reactionary view. The middle class of Egypt want self-determination over their lives and know that democracy is the only viable route to take.

[lemoncake]

The fundamental problem in Egypt in the election of a year ago was that too many of the people who showed up en masse to topple Mubarak went home after the job was done and, rightfully feeling a sense of real accomplishment, stayed home. We see in Thailand that actual democrats point out to the population that democracy means more than voting on election day, polling day as some call it - that it means constant vigilance and active participation during the term of the government.

In Egypt a year ago the election was dominated by the highly organized and structured, purpose-bent Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow travelers. The new election, I am confident, will see the mass of the middle class who last week filled Tahrir Square and the streets of Cairo go to the polls to vote to elect a moderate president and then a moderate parliament. I don't expect the mass of the middle class to stay home the next time around - it seems clear they have learned their lesson about voting as opposed to staying home.

The challenge will be to actually have a new election as the Brotherhood, now realizing it can neither get elected nor govern when it had been elected, will attempt to create a chaos that would preclude an election or make an election a bloody and fearful event.

Egypt, the ancient center of Middle East civilization, has shown the very real potential to establish the first viable democracy in the ME, one that is similar to the legitimate Muslim democracies of SE Asia, e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia and immediately next door to the ME, Turkey (which is having its own growing pains against the willful strongman Erdogan).

I see it's the case that some here, when we point our forefinger at the moon and at Mars, say our fingernails need clipping. They need a more healthy perspective and a longer view that is rooted in reality rather than in the short-sighted and easy to assume reactionary view. The middle class of Egypt want self-determination over their lives and know that democracy is the only viable route to take.

It is yet another excuse, and there will be more excuses. Lets wait and see if Egypt can be an exception which personally i highly doubt

[Steely Dan]

If the choice is between a secular dictator and religious fascism then a dictator is the least bad option, who knows you may even end up with a benevolent one such as Ataturk. To paraphrase Ayaan Hirsi Ali democracy is an alien concept in the middle east, it requires compromise when the psyche of the people is that compromise shows weakness, hence whoever 'wins' by default crushes whoever loses. Does anybody actually believe you can ever reach a consensus between Salafists and secularists, some of whom are women aspiring to have the rights and freedoms afforded to women elsewhere?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali said what exactly about democracies in the middle east? is she pro military coups because democracy is alien to them?

She was born in Somali. gained asylum in the Netherlands where she became an MP. Here is an interview from December last year.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lied in her visa application for the Netherlands. Thats why she isn't an MP anymore, not even dutch anymore.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ab_1202757353

She makes a living out of feeding the islamophobic feels in the west. She talks like a black Pamela Geller.

And no surprise she even sympathies with Anders Behring Breivik.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/05/ayaan-hirsi-ali-sympathizes-with-terrorist-anders-behring-breivik/

If you quote loonwatch as a source there is no hope for you whatsoever. She left the Netherlands because after working on the script of the film for which Theo Van Gogh was murdered for the police said they could no longer guarantee her safety. She was listed as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

[Steely Dan]

The ideology of the strongman dictator is bankrupt. This is the 21st century. You must like Thaksin too, which is your choice if so. And, by logical extension, you must like the CCP as well, which would not be good or acceptable.

I'd add that Europe and the United States can pontificate about coups with good reason. The coup in Thailand led to nothing good. This coup in Egypt does establish a terrible precedent and, as in the instance of Thailand in 2006, has the support of the middle class.

In the instance of Egypt, as with Thailand, the choice is always between the lesser of two evils. Hobson's choice is too common but real, banal. Let's hope the coup in Egypt turns out better than the coup in Thailand did. But we can only hope. Unfortunately, it's a roll of the dice.

You can't just replace a dictator with a vacuum and expect democracy to magically emerge. To merely have an election is as much a caricature of democracy as one of those Thai western theme bars is of the wild west.

By way of historical perspective Wahabbism and Salafism emerged as a response to the shock experienced by the Muslim world when they encountered the technologically superior western colonialists. Instead of trying to emulate their betters they 'rationalized' their fate was due to turning away from traditional 7th century Islam, hence the time warp ideology we encounter today. They would still be riding round on camels and prodding each other with sticks were it not for oil. A dictator who at least allows commercial development is streets ahead of Wahabbism and Salafism, both of which, almost by definition, are incompatible with democracy. The situation in Egypt most closely resembles that in Algeria when Islamists won the election but the army intervened. Now after suffering years of fighting against the Islamists 93% of Algerians want nothing to do with them. I fear had the events in Algeria happened today they would have had a Sharia regime foisted on them by western liberals clueless as to what they were dealing with.

P.S I would just add that the National Socialists came to power in Germany through the ballot box in 1933, had the army intervened and removed them then technically that would have been a coup.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Steely Dan

[Publicus]

The fundamental problem in Egypt in the election of a year ago was that too many of the people who showed up en masse to topple Mubarak went home after the job was done and, rightfully feeling a sense of real accomplishment, stayed home. We see in Thailand that actual democrats point out to the population that democracy means more than voting on election day, polling day as some call it - that it means constant vigilance and active participation during the term of the government.

In Egypt a year ago the election was dominated by the highly organized and structured, purpose-bent Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow travelers. The new election, I am confident, will see the mass of the middle class who last week filled Tahrir Square and the streets of Cairo go to the polls to vote to elect a moderate president and then a moderate parliament. I don't expect the mass of the middle class to stay home the next time around - it seems clear they have learned their lesson about voting as opposed to staying home.

The challenge will be to actually have a new election as the Brotherhood, now realizing it can neither get elected nor govern when it had been elected, will attempt to create a chaos that would preclude an election or make an election a bloody and fearful event.

Egypt, the ancient center of Middle East civilization, has shown the very real potential to establish the first viable democracy in the ME, one that is similar to the legitimate Muslim democracies of SE Asia, e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia and immediately next door to the ME, Turkey (which is having its own growing pains against the willful strongman Erdogan).

I see it's the case that some here, when we point our forefinger at the moon and at Mars, say our fingernails need clipping. They need a more healthy perspective and a longer view that is rooted in reality rather than in the short-sighted and easy to assume reactionary view. The middle class of Egypt want self-determination over their lives and know that democracy is the only viable route to take.

It is yet another excuse, and there will be more excuses. Lets wait and see if Egypt can be an exception which personally i highly doubt

My posts present grounded reasoning and analysis of the present circumstances of Egypt. Certain other posts present excuses why the reasoning must be denied and prefer to present the reactionary point of view. Your doubts and skepticism are clearly known, as is the absence of a viable analysis of the realities and the potentialities of Egypt in the present and looking towards the future. There is always some doubt, some limitations to what can be accomplished. One hundred percent doubt is unjustified and wrong because it necessarily translates into the reactionary point of view, i.e., to call forth yet another dictator as the only solution.

[Publicus]

Western Liberals are not clueless. Drawing on our roots in ancient Greece, we've done pretty well over recent centuries and have plenty of gas in the tank and our batteries continually recharged to continue forward. It's the Western right wing that sees no hope or promise because the Western right is not rooted in the realities of the present moment. Speculating about Algeria today "if" is a waste of time and effort - to do so provides no viable or applicable model to the present events on the ground in either Algeria or Egypt, to include Tunesia.

Western Liberalism is a philosophy, a thorough system of rational thought developed over millennia. Conversely, ideology, a recent construct of history, is a brain disease.

I reiterate, winning a viable election never means one should expect 100% of the vote. (Any dictator worth his salt should be able to get at least 120% of the vote.) The task is to get the loser to accept the outcome and to look toward the next election. Insurrections throughout history have been dealt with accordingly

[Steely Dan]

Western Liberals are not clueless. Drawing on our roots in ancient Greece, we've done pretty well over recent centuries and have plenty of gas in the tank and our batteries continually recharged to continue forward. It's the Western right wing that sees no hope or promise because the Western right is not rooted in the realities of the present moment. Speculating about Algeria today "if" is a waste of time and effort - to do so provides no viable or applicable model to the present events on the ground in either Algeria or Egypt, to include Tunesia.

Western Liberalism is a philosophy, a thorough system of rational thought developed over millennia. Conversely, ideology, a recent construct of history, is a brain disease.

I reiterate, winning a viable election never means one should expect 100% of the vote. (Any dictator worth his salt should be able to get at least 120% of the vote.) The task is to get the loser to accept the outcome and to look toward the next election. Insurrections throughout history have been dealt with accordingly

I'm sure the Iranians keep looking forward to the next election, and the one after that. Islamism is precisely the ideology you keep mentioning, to put it on an equal footing with respect to choices for democratic government is delusional, you can not reason or negotiate with totalitarian ideology.

[folium]

The ideology of the strongman dictator is bankrupt. This is the 21st century. You must like Thaksin too, which is your choice if so. And, by logical extension, you must like the CCP as well, which would not be good or acceptable.

I'd add that Europe and the United States can pontificate about coups with good reason. The coup in Thailand led to nothing good. This coup in Egypt does establish a terrible precedent and, as in the instance of Thailand in 2006, has the support of the middle class.

In the instance of Egypt, as with Thailand, the choice is always between the lesser of two evils. Hobson's choice is too common but real, banal. Let's hope the coup in Egypt turns out better than the coup in Thailand did. But we can only hope. Unfortunately, it's a roll of the dice.

You can't just replace a dictator with a vacuum and expect democracy to magically emerge. To merely have an election is as much a caricature of democracy as one of those Thai western theme bars is of the wild west.

By way of historical perspective Wahabbism and Salafism emerged as a response to the shock experienced by the Muslim world when they encountered the technologically superior western colonialists. Instead of trying to emulate their betters they 'rationalized' their fate was due to turning away from traditional 7th century Islam, hence the time warp ideology we encounter today. They would still be riding round on camels and prodding each other with sticks were it not for oil. A dictator who at least allows commercial development is streets ahead of Wahabbism and Salafism, both of which, almost by definition, are incompatible with democracy. The situation in Egypt most closely resembles that in Algeria when Islamists won the election but the army intervened. Now after suffering years of fighting against the Islamists 93% of Algerians want nothing to do with them. I fear had the events in Algeria happened today they would have had a Sharia regime foisted on them by western liberals clueless as to what they were dealing with.

P.S I would just add that the National Socialists came to power in Germany through the ballot box in 1933, had the army intervened and removed them then technically that would have been a coup.

To compare Algeria in 1991 and Egypt now without acknowledging the profound differences is intellectually dishonest or just ignorant....

The Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) never had the chance to govern as Egypt's Islamists did. Nor had Algeria undergone a recent revolution, while Morsi and his supporters stood accused of betraying Egypt's aspirations after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.

Egypt has already experienced vicious violence in the form of a militant Islamist insurgency in the mid-1990s and into the 2000s, with frequent terrorist attacks in the Nile Valley and in the Sinai resorts. It was roundly defeated, its members either being killed, surrendering or turning to al-Qaida (whose current leader is the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri).

It is also clear that the army's move in Egypt enjoyed enormous popular support – not the case in Algeria in 1991.

But challenging the validity of such a crass analogy does not imply there are no dangers ahead. With the political situation very volatile, with the economy in shambles, and so many weapons lying around, it is not difficult to imagine violence breaking out.

Furthermore, even if the two situations are different there may well be useful lessons to be learned. According to al-Arabiya TV, a group of Algerian MPs made this point in an open letter to the Egyptian people. "The shedding of blood of Egyptians under any pretext should be condemned out loud by everyone," they advised. "Give priority to reason, logic, and adopt dialogue. There is no other way."

[F430murci]

The fundamental problem in Egypt in the election of a year ago was that too many of the people who showed up en masse to topple Mubarak went home after the job was done and, rightfully feeling a sense of real accomplishment, stayed home. We see in Thailand that actual democrats point out to the population that democracy means more than voting on election day, polling day as some call it - that it means constant vigilance and active participation during the term of the government.

In Egypt a year ago the election was dominated by the highly organized and structured, purpose-bent Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow travelers. The new election, I am confident, will see the mass of the middle class who last week filled Tahrir Square and the streets of Cairo go to the polls to vote to elect a moderate president and then a moderate parliament. I don't expect the mass of the middle class to stay home the next time around - it seems clear they have learned their lesson about voting as opposed to staying home.

The challenge will be to actually have a new election as the Brotherhood, now realizing it can neither get elected nor govern when it had been elected, will attempt to create a chaos that would preclude an election or make an election a bloody and fearful event.

Egypt, the ancient center of Middle East civilization, has shown the very real potential to establish the first viable democracy in the ME, one that is similar to the legitimate Muslim democracies of SE Asia, e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia and immediately next door to the ME, Turkey (which is having its own growing pains against the willful strongman Erdogan).

I see it's the case that some here, when we point our forefinger at the moon and at Mars, say our fingernails need clipping. They need a more healthy perspective and a longer view that is rooted in reality rather than in the short-sighted and easy to assume reactionary view. The middle class of Egypt want self-determination over their lives and know that democracy is the only viable route to take.

It is yet another excuse, and there will be more excuses. Lets wait and see if Egypt can be an exception which personally i highly doubt

I would think Egypt's frustration has less to do with the style of government and more to do with their dire economic situation. They are desperate to get economy back on track, get jobs and correct stag inflation. I doubt any of this would have happened had economy been on track and people were not hurting.

The problem is coup was an impatient response to correct the heart of the matter, but will only make the matter worse. If they could have held another year, got IMF funds and etc., they had the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, they run risk of disintegrating much like a Syria as their economy is now completely screwed and an entirely new desperation will be felt say 30 days out when central bank is insolvent due to money being converted and moved.

Oh and the economy was screwed before Morsi took over. Completely screwed so removing him fixed zero from an economic perspective because he still had a chance to get IMF funds and provide foreign investors some level of comfort. He would have eventually made the tough decisions on subsidies.

Edited July 7, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Patting Egypt on the back and giving them the ole attaboy for saying f u to the US style of government is extremely selfish and short sighted. You are effectively congratulating them for committing suicide over living a way of life YOU resent for whatever reason.

[Steely Dan]

Patting Egypt on the back and giving them the ole attaboy for saying f u to the US style of government is extremely selfish and short sighted. You are effectively congratulating them for committing suicide over living a way of life YOU resent for whatever reason.

U.S Style government never consists of a party or constitution which explicitly discriminates against great swathes of the population due to gender, religion or sexual orientation, regardless of what you might think of the Republican party.

To be in favour of the so called coup is not necessarily just a matter of thumbing one's nose at the U.S. but more to do with a policy totally devoid of reason. There is one ironic consequence to these events, I suspect the U.S has managed to unite Israeli and Saudi interests. The Israelis will welcome the Egyptian army finally tacking the militants in Sinai and the Saudi royal family are ecstatic at this setback for the Muslim brotherhood, who they fear for domestic reasons. Should the U.S stop supplying aid to Egypt I have more than a suspicion that the Saudis will make up the shortfall dollar for dollar.

http://www.debka.com/article/23101/Obama-frowns-on-Egyptian-army%E2%80%99s-alignment-with-Gulf-regimes-coming-crackdown-on-Muslim-Brotherhood-

Edited July 8, 2013 by Steely Dan

[F430murci]

Patting Egypt on the back and giving them the ole attaboy for saying f u to the US style of government is extremely selfish and short sighted. You are effectively congratulating them for committing suicide over living a way of life YOU resent for whatever reason.

U.S Style government never consists of a party or constitution which explicitly discriminates against great swathes of the population due to gender, religion or sexual orientation, regardless of what you might think of the Republican party.

To be in favour of the so called coup is not necessarily just a matter of thumbing one's nose at the U.S. but more to do with a policy totally devoid of reason. There is one ironic consequence to these events, I suspect the U.S has managed to unite Israeli and Saudi interests. The Israelis will welcome the Egyptian army finally tacking the militants in Sinai and the Saudi royal family are ecstatic at this setback for the Muslim brotherhood, who they fear for domestic reasons. Should the U.S stop supplying aid to Egypt I have more than a suspicion that the Saudis will make up the shortfall dollar for dollar.

I have no idea of even what you are trying to convey. I have zero care in the world what government any country has. I was not for Morsi or anyone. None of my business really. I am only concerned because I think the people of Egypt just made things really worse for themselves. Wait 30 days and see where it is heading when excitement is over and reality sets in. You may have the warm and fuzzies about what is going on for whatever reasons, but I don't they will be sharing the same feelings any time soon.

[lemoncake]

The fundamental problem in Egypt in the election of a year ago was that too many of the people who showed up en masse to topple Mubarak went home after the job was done and, rightfully feeling a sense of real accomplishment, stayed home. We see in Thailand that actual democrats point out to the population that democracy means more than voting on election day, polling day as some call it - that it means constant vigilance and active participation during the term of the government.

In Egypt a year ago the election was dominated by the highly organized and structured, purpose-bent Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow travelers. The new election, I am confident, will see the mass of the middle class who last week filled Tahrir Square and the streets of Cairo go to the polls to vote to elect a moderate president and then a moderate parliament. I don't expect the mass of the middle class to stay home the next time around - it seems clear they have learned their lesson about voting as opposed to staying home.

The challenge will be to actually have a new election as the Brotherhood, now realizing it can neither get elected nor govern when it had been elected, will attempt to create a chaos that would preclude an election or make an election a bloody and fearful event.

Egypt, the ancient center of Middle East civilization, has shown the very real potential to establish the first viable democracy in the ME, one that is similar to the legitimate Muslim democracies of SE Asia, e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia and immediately next door to the ME, Turkey (which is having its own growing pains against the willful strongman Erdogan).

I see it's the case that some here, when we point our forefinger at the moon and at Mars, say our fingernails need clipping. They need a more healthy perspective and a longer view that is rooted in reality rather than in the short-sighted and easy to assume reactionary view. The middle class of Egypt want self-determination over their lives and know that democracy is the only viable route to take.

It is yet another excuse, and there will be more excuses. Lets wait and see if Egypt can be an exception which personally i highly doubt

I would think Egypt's frustration has less to do with the style of government and more to do with their dire economic situation. They are desperate to get economy back on track, get jobs and correct stag inflation. I doubt any of this would have happened had economy been on track and people were not hurting.

The problem is coup was an impatient response to correct the heart of the matter, but will only make the matter worse. If they could have held another year, got IMF funds and etc., they had the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, they run risk of disintegrating much like a Syria as their economy is now completely screwed and an entirely new desperation will be felt say 30 days out when central bank is insolvent due to money being converted and moved.

Oh and the economy was screwed before Morsi took over. Completely screwed so removing him fixed zero from an economic perspective because he still had a chance to get IMF funds and provide foreign investors some level of comfort. He would have eventually made the tough decisions on subsidies.

Yes, some believe that the problem was economics, but at the very same time many supported breaking gas deal with Israel.

Even more supported breaking ties with Israel. The significance of that is that Israel was one of major trading partners, not to mention gas lines to Jordan run through Israel.

Also keep in mind the General who led the coup is the very same man who Morsi appointed.

Morsi also tried to pass law to have absolute power, which would have worked if he was smarter to sweeten the army by following Russian example.

Increase salary for military and police and they would never remove you, Putin did just that and managed to take even stronger hold of power.

In Egypt, you have many who want a secular state, but just as many who want Sharia state. Neither are willing to compromise,

Some have already called the appointed PM to be a Jew, so i do not see Egypt moving anywhere forward.

[Publicus]

People say a lot of things to promote their cause and to discredit the opposition. That's normal. In Egypt it's an attention getter among some to say their new leader is a Jew. The middle class that led the second revolution against the Muslim Brotherhood know the claim is baloney, perhaps even malicious.

The statement reflects more on the people making the wild accusation than on the person himself or against the persons who made the interim appointment. Extremist claims do not negate the reality of the situation or the circumstance because the middle class are middle minded politically and socioeconomically.

Extremist Islamics are fooling (and further discrediting) only themselves.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Publicus

[midas]

I would think Egypt's frustration has less to do with the style of government and more to do with their dire economic situation. They are desperate to get economy back on track, get jobs and correct stag inflation. I doubt any of this would have happened had economy been on track and people were not hurting.

The problem is coup was an impatient response to correct the heart of the matter, but will only make the matter worse. If they could have held another year, got IMF funds and etc., they had the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.

Now, they run risk of disintegrating much like a Syria as their economy is now completely screwed and an entirely new desperation will be felt say 30 days out when central bank is insolvent due to money being converted and moved.

Oh and the economy was screwed before Morsi took over. Completely screwed so removing him fixed zero from an economic perspective because he still had a chance to get IMF funds and provide foreign investors some level of comfort. He would have eventually made the tough decisions on subsidies.

Yes, some believe that the problem was economics, but at the very same time many supported breaking gas deal with Israel.

Even more supported breaking ties with Israel. The significance of that is that Israel was one of major trading partners, not to mention gas lines to Jordan run through Israel.

Also keep in mind the General who led the coup is the very same man who Morsi appointed.

Morsi also tried to pass law to have absolute power, which would have worked if he was smarter to sweeten the army by following Russian example.

Increase salary for military and police and they would never remove you, Putin did just that and managed to take even stronger hold of power.

In Egypt, you have many who want a secular state, but just as many who want Sharia state. Neither are willing to compromise,

Some have already called the appointed PM to be a Jew, so i do not see Egypt moving anywhere forward.

With the latest developments this morning I would say it now looks incredibly bleak. If the Moslem brotherhood's version of events is true and they opened fire on people only praying after their freely elected president has been ousted there is no hope for a peaceful solution.

The BBC's Wyre Davies: "There are real concerns the country is descending into civil war"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23222546

Edited July 8, 2013 by midas