Egypt - Back with a vengence

First topic message reminder :


Egypt: back with a vengeance
The young Egyptians who created the popular networks which brought down the Mubarak regime are now being victimised by its successor


The skies are darkening over Egypt. The filing of fresh charges against deposed President Mohamed Morsi, the jailing of three prominent secular leaders of the 2011 revolution, and a savage attack on a provincial police headquarters, all in the same week, point to a future in which Egypt's politics will be conducted by violent means. How miserably different this is from the open and civilised democracy to which the revolution once seemed to be leading.

That revolution is now being torn up by its roots. The young Egyptians who created the popular networks which brought down the Mubarak regime are now being victimised by its successor. The three men sent to jail belonged to the April 6 Movement, established in early 2008 to support a strike by textile workers in Mahallah. Both April 6 and the broader Kifaya ("Enough") movement used Facebook and Twitter to organise and communicate. Such acts of defiance and solidarity, and the innovative use of new media, kept the tradition of radical secular opposition alive. These young people provided the rhetoric and skills which, along with the Tunisian example, helped the Egyptian revolution to succeed.

The symbol of the April 6 movement was a raised fist. But Egypt now has rulers who are determined that fist will never be raised against them again. Two co-founders of the movement, Ahmed Maher and Mohamed Adel, have been sentenced to three years, along with another activist, Ahmed Douma. They broke a new law which effectively bans demonstrations. This followed a raid on the Egyptian Centre for Economic and Social Rights in which staff were beaten, and Mr Adel arrested. It is now evident that the Egyptian military, behind its unconvincing civilian facade, is ready to be as hard on its secular as on its religious opponents. It duly demonstrated its even-handed repressiveness by filing the fresh charges against Mr Morsi, accusing him of murdering protesters and of a plot to bring down the Mubarak government with help from abroad. The death penalty could apply to Mr Morsi and to others charged with him if they are found guilty.

Governments reap what they sow. Tuesday's bombing of a police headquarters in Mansoura was followed by a declaration by the Egyptian cabinet that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organisation. It is not at all established that the Brotherhood was responsible. But Mansoura shows what happens when legitimate political expression ceases to be possible. The revolution decapitated the Egyptian security state, based on the army, the police and the business elite, by removing Mubarak. But it has grown a new head, and it is now back, quite literally, with a vengeance.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/25/egypt-back-with-a-vengeance

Think the writer has a few things wrong. The military never went away. Morsi was only allowed to control some things, was never in control of the military or the judges and defence was under military rule at all times. The military run the television stations, say who can and can't appear, that has never changed and now are putting just about everyone, whatever their political status, into prison if they dare raise a voice against it. The revolution for democracy is further away than ever.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I never said Murabak was, we are talking about you ethics which seem to change with the wind dependent on who is in charge

No, my ethics don't change. Mubarak wasn't elected by the ballot box - Morsi was and it was the ballot box that should have been used to decide if he should be removed.

Honestly Didge - Your comment about Mubarak and the ballot box really made me chuckle

Anyway, tea's oot now lol

But Morsi only came to power through elections off the back of revolution did he not, so you either support democratic process and thus do not support Morsi coming to power, or you back the will of the people?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No, my ethics don't change. Mubarak wasn't elected by the ballot box - Morsi was and it was the ballot box that should have been used to decide if he should be removed.

Honestly Didge - Your comment about Mubarak and the ballot box really made me chuckle

Anyway, tea's oot now lol

But Morsi only came to power through elections off the back of revolution did he not, so you either support democratic process and thus do not support Morsi coming to power, or you back the will of the people?

Yes yes yes and yes again Didge. What you have written and I've highlighted above is my idea of democracy. The will of the people expressed through the ballot box  - that's the right way.

Surely that's yours as well.

PhilDidge wrote:
the world?

I will take that bet, where is this evidence you have spoken to 7 billion people?

 

"evidence", Didge !?!

WHO cares about a trivial little matter like "evidence" when our sassy is on one of her all too regular pro-terrorist, anti-democracy, pro-despots, anti-freedom agenda-driven rants..

NOT her nor her imaginary little supporter munchkins out there in Neverland !

    

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:For the record, it was not a theocracy under Morsi, but he was trying to make it one

So if it wasn't a theocracy under Morsi and he was as you claim trying to make it one then the Egyptian electorate could have voted him out at the next election.

....................................................

  

THEIR "next election" was three years away...

A LOT could have still happened over that three years..

LIKE a total meltdown in social order and any residual democracy.

Their next election will be...never, if the MB is in. They will leave the ballot to god.

 

THE reality of the failed "Muslim Brotherhood" movement must be a great disappointment to many over around the Middle East and Northern Africa...

THEY swept in across the Middle East during the "Arab Spring" with a lot of promise and preaching "democracy", but then were allowed to keep the same old zealots, wannabe-despots and bullyboys in charge of the show..

JUST shows what ALWAYS happens when people are foolish enough as to allow self-serving conservative-minded religious-dogmatists to remain in control, rather than side-lining them early in the piece.

WE'VE seen it all before with Northern Ireland, the "tea baggers" in the USA, Islamists in various Middle East countries..   

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I never said Murabak was, we are talking about you ethics which seem to change with the wind dependent on who is in charge

No, my ethics don't change. Mubarak wasn't elected by the ballot box - Morsi was and it was the ballot box that should have been used to decide if he should be removed.

Honestly Didge - Your comment about Mubarak and the ballot box really made me chuckle

Anyway, tea's oot now lol

So you are happy that Murabak was brought down by the people and yet unhappy that the people helped bring down Morsi.

DOH, you are daft it seems, you need to make up your mind what you stand for it seems..




Hi Bee

That made me chuckle   

Beekeeper wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So if it wasn't a theocracy under Morsi and he was as you claim trying to make it one then the Egyptian electorate could have voted him out at the next election.

....................................................

  

THEIR "next election" was three years away...

A LOT could have still happened over that three years..

LIKE a total meltdown in social order and any residual democracy.

We will never know will we because the military are back in charge and not by using the ballot box either.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

No, my ethics don't change. Mubarak wasn't elected by the ballot box - Morsi was and it was the ballot box that should have been used to decide if he should be removed.

Honestly Didge - Your comment about Mubarak and the ballot box really made me chuckle

Anyway, tea's oot now lol

So you are happy that Murabak was brought down by the people and yet unhappy that the people helped bring down Morsi.

DOH, you are daft it seems, you need to make up your mind what you stand for it seems..




Hi Bee

That made me chuckle   

You haven't spotted the difference yet, have you?

Mubarak was not elected by the ballot box. Morsi was.

So where's your democracy lie? Ballot box or guns?

Simple really

Beekeeper wrote: 

THE reality of the failed "Muslim Brotherhood" movement must be a great disappointment to many over around the Middle East and Northern Africa...

THEY swept in across the Middle East during the "Arab Spring" with a lot of promise and preaching "democracy", but then were allowed to keep the same old zealots, wannabe-despots and bullyboys in charge of the show..

JUST shows what ALWAYS happens when people are foolish enough as to allow self-serving conservative-minded religious-dogmatists to remain in control, rather than side-lining them early in the piece.

WE'VE seen it all before with Northern Ireland, the "tea baggers" in the USA, Islamists in various Middle East countries..    

Hey Bee,

but then were allowed to keep the same old zealots, wannabe-despots and bullyboys in charge of the show..

That's the guys that are back in charge in Egypt using guns and not the ballot box. Hadn't you noticed? Bully boys right enough.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So you are happy that Murabak was brought down by the people and yet unhappy that the people helped bring down Morsi.

DOH, you are daft it seems, you need to make up your mind what you stand for it seems..




Hi Bee

That made me chuckle   

You haven't spotted the difference yet, have you?

Mubarak was not elected by the ballot box. Morsi was.

So where's your democracy lie? Ballot box or guns?

Simple really

You really are a simpleton, both were brought down by the people and you are happy with only one being brought down with the same method, it id irrelevant where one is elected or not, they were both brought down by the people. DOH

So you need ti get your ethics sorted out dear Irn Curtain, you cannot support one without supporting the other when the same method was used, hence why you are a simpleton

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You haven't spotted the difference yet, have you?

Mubarak was not elected by the ballot box. Morsi was.

So where's your democracy lie? Ballot box or guns?

Simple really

You really are a simpleton, both were brought down by the people and you are happy with only one being brought down with the same method, it id irrelevant where one is elected or not, they were both brought down by the people. DOH

So you need ti get your ethics sorted out dear Irn Curtain, you cannot support one without supporting the other when the same method was used, hence why you are a simpleton  

Oh dear, petty name calling again - let's you down so badly Didge.

The Mubarak government wasn't elected by the people the Morsi Government was.

It's really easy to understand but you are having great difficulty doing that. You are happy for a democratically elected government to be removed with guns and that says it all about what your idea of democracy is.

Oh dear

It matters not who is elected, both groups were brought down by the same method, you are happy to support one and not the other, that is illogical because you supported the method once before, thus still not grasping this are you

Very oh dear

PhilDidge wrote:It matters not who is elected, both groups were brought down by the same method, you are happy to support one and not the other, that is illogical because you supported the method once before, thus still not grasping this are you

Very oh dear

But it matters if they are elected. The point you cannot grasp.

It does not matter because on both occasions the people brought down the Governments, you supported the first time this method was used and then become illogical when it is used again

PhilDidge wrote:It does not matter because on both occasions the people brought down the Governments, you supported the first time this method was used and then become illogical when it is used again

So now whether a government is elected by the ballot box or not does not matter.

Oh Christ your a god send to every despot who fancies their chances at a shot at government by using guns.

That says it all Didge,so on that note I'll bid you good morning as I have some work to do.

Chuckle chuckle

It does not matter as on both occasions the people brought down those in charge and you supported the first coup, but not the second, hilarious

Yes have good morning Irn

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:It does not matter because on both occasions the people brought down the Governments, you supported the first time this method was used and then become illogical when it is used again

So now whether a government is elected by the ballot box or not does not matter.

Oh Christ your a god send to every despot who fancies their chances at a shot at government by using guns.

That says it all Didge,so on that note I'll bid you good morning as I have some work to do.

Chuckle chuckle

Well, going through the posts since last night, Bee we can write off, that was hardly a post was it?   Quill and Didge obviously don't believe in democracy, and if you have a freely elected government and you don't like it, you tear them down, because they cannot produce one jot of evidence that Morsi was going to stop elections, in fact Parliamentary elections were due just a few months after the coup, they had been planned for already, so the Government could have been influenced by them.

Can I suggest Irn, we set up a coup to overthrow Cameron?   After all, a very large percentage of the population would not vote for his, his policies are despises by a huge swathe, let's not wait for elections, let's just topple the government.    Didge will stand up for us, after all, that's what he believes in.

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

So now whether a government is elected by the ballot box or not does not matter.

Oh Christ your a god send to every despot who fancies their chances at a shot at government by using guns.

That says it all Didge,so on that note I'll bid you good morning as I have some work to do.

Chuckle chuckle

Well, going through the posts since last night, Bee we can write off, that was hardly a post was it?   Quill and Didge obviously don't believe in democracy, and if you have a freely elected government and you don't like it, you tear them down, because they cannot produce one jot of evidence that Morsi was going to stop elections, in fact Parliamentary elections were due just a few months after the coup, they had been planned for already, so the Government could have been influenced by them.

Can I suggest Irn, we set up a coup to overthrow Cameron?   After all, a very large percentage of the population would not vote for his, his policies are despises by a huge swathe, let's not wait for elections, let's just topple the government.    Didge will stand up for us, after all, that's what he believes in.

Hilarious, so if Hitler was taken down by a coup, you would not support this even though he was democratically elected?

take your time

The 1932 German presidential elections were held on 13 March (first round) and 10 April (second round run-off).[1] They were the second and final direct elections to the office of President of the Reich (Reichspräsident), Germany's head of state under the Weimar Republic. The incumbent President, Paul von Hindenburg, first elected in 1925, was re-elected to a second seven-year term of office. His major opponent in the election was Adolf Hitler of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).

Under the Weimar system, the presidency was a powerful office and, following his re-election, Hindenburg played an important role in the coming to power of the Nazis, reluctantly appointing Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933.

ncumbent President Paul von Hindenburg was 84 years old and in poor health. Never enthusiastic about the presidency (or public office in general), Hindenburg had planned to stand down after his first term. However, the prospect of Adolf Hitler being elected President of Germany persuaded the reluctant incumbent to seek a second term.

Despite becoming a German citizen (and thus eligible for public office) only on 25 February 1932, Hitler hoped to use the presidency to overturn the Weimar constitution and establish a dictatorship. In the 1925 election Hindenburg had been the candidate of the political right and had been strenuously opposed by much of the moderate left and political center. However, in 1932, this part of the political spectrum decided to unite with the moderate right in supporting Hindenburg to prevent Hitler's election. The support of the moderate Weimar coalition was also encouraged by the fact that, contrary to fears expressed at the time of his election in 1925, Hindenburg had not used his office to subvert the constitution, as Hitler now aimed to do.

Although Hitler lost the presidential election of 1932, he succeeded Hindenburg as head of state only two years later, when Hindenburg died in 1934. After the president's death Hitler abolished the office entirely, and replaced it with the new position of Führer und Reichskanzler ("Leader and Reich Chancellor"), cementing his dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Democratically elected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

So again would you support a coup on Hitler or not, as he was democratically elected?

Second would you support a coup against Hitler

From your link:

Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. The Nazis registered a large increase in votes, again emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority (despite the massive suppression against Communist and Social Democratic politicians) in their own right, needing the votes of their coalition partner, the DNVP German National People's Party, or "Black-White-Red-Struggle-Front," for a working majority. Due to the success in the poll, party leader Adolf Hitler – Chancellor since 30 January (see my previous post, he wasn't elected to it) – was able to pass the Enabling Act on 23 March, which effectively made Hitler dictator of Germany. As a result, this was the last election held in Germany before the end of World War II and the formation of the German Bundestag in 1949.

yes and they formed a Coalition Dummy, which still means they had the right to form a Government of which they did, thus they were democratically elected.

So the question still stands of which you are showing the funniest desperation to get out of.

Would you support a Coup against Hitler, or Mussolini?

Would you also support a Coup against Robert Mugabe?

No I wouldn't, he is elected, and much as I despise what he does, it is up to the electorate to get rid of him. If they can prove that the elections were fixed, they need another election with the fixing being stopped. That's the trouble with democracy you see, sometimes some people don't like the results, then you have to work within the system to change them. It can be very frustrating.

There you have it then Stasi would keep in place despotic people who keep murdering people, priceless

There you have it, I believe in democracy and doing things through a democratic process, you don't.

No you believe in backing people who commit murder and genocide because they were elected through Democracy, thus you thus then do not think America should be free, the war of independence was thus wrong also.

Daft

The main causes of the American Independence war were as follows:

(a) The main underlying cause was Britain's attempt to tighten imperial con­trol in the economic field by regulating American commerce and industry to suit British interests (by policy of Mercantilism).

(b) English Navigation or Trade Acts required goods to be shipped to and from America, only in English ships.

(c) Many goods like tobacco, cotton, sugar could be sold only in England, where they were taxed.

(d) European goods sold to America had to be landed first in England, taxed and then transported in English ships.

(e) Americans were discouraged from manufacturing iron and textiles, which were supplied from England.

(f) Colonists were prevented from settling in West America as these lands had been bought by the English aristocracy.

(g) The Stamp Act increased the tension, as colonists were forced to pay a tax on stamps which were to be fixed on many kinds of documents. This led to the demand 'No taxation without representation'.

(h) Americans objected to British taxation on consumer goods, particularly tea that led to the Boston Tea Party and the beginning of the revolution.
http://www.preservearticles.com/201107159168/what-were-the-causes-for-the-american-war-of-independence.html

Its brought in elections!

I thought you were a student of history?

I know the causes, I am showing you many times events make people rise up, and yet you think it is wrong, considering you have to look up History is even funnier

Were the English democratically elected over the Americans?  

Have I ever made a case for not rising up if the people at the top are not elected?

Not quite sure why you used something that wasn't about democracy (only bringing it in) to justify overturning democracy:

Well as seen you would rather murders stay in power when elected as already seen and do not mind a coup when Mubarak was in power, it does not get any more illogical than that

Murabak was not elected by the people.

I know he was not but you support a coup against him, hence the illogical view point you are giving, you either are against coups or you are for them being used sometimes

I supported a coup against him because he was not elected, there was no other way of getting rid of him. It was not a democracy.

If you want a democracy you have to follow the democratic rules.

So you do support coups then.

So basically you believe Hitler was right to execute Von Stauffenberg then because he tried a coup against a democratically elected Nazi party?

Shall we stick to Egypt and have less of the diversions. Murabak was not elected. Morsi was. If you want democracy you have to stick to the rules.

PhilDidge wrote:So you do support coups then.

So basically you believe Hitler was right to execute Von Stauffenberg then because he tried a coup against a democratically elected Nazi party?

No lets stick to you answering questions that make your argument look silly.

Also the people helped remove a man who was trying to obtain unlimited powers and had to be stopped, which thank goodness he was

They don't make my argument look silly, they make you look silly for thinking they are in any way relevant.

Murbarak was not elected.   Morsi was.   If you want democracy you have to stick to democratic rules.

(PS, Hitler was not elected and the Nazi's never had an overall majority, they only stayed in power because of the Enabling Act Hitler brought in, there were not going to be any more elections).

Yes and Morsi tried to give himself unlimited powers which was not voted by the people or do you deny this?

Take your time

Hitler and the Nazi's were elected and allowed to form a Governemnt having the majority vote, you seriously know shit all Stasi

Hitler was not elected.

When the Supreme Constitutional Court pointed out that its rulings “are final and not subject to appeal,” Morsi gave himself legislative powers until a new election could be held. That election was originally set for April, but the court ruled in the spring that the mechanisms for holding election were illegal, delaying the election till fall. The voting was never scheduled, and it’s unclear when it will happen now.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/05/195929/morsis-long-fall-began-when-he.html#storylink=cpy

Now I'm busy.

Hitler was elected you daft prune

And as seen the people stayed away from voting for Morsi to have unlimited powers which it seems you wanted him to be a dictator 


On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed as the chancellor of Germany by President Paul Von Hindenburg. This appointment was made in an effort to keep Hitler and the Nazi Party “in check”; however, it would have disastrous results for Germany and the entire European continent. In the year and seven months that followed, Hitler was able to exploit the death of Hindenburg and combine the positions of chancellor and president into the position of Führer, the supreme leader of Germany.

Sassy wrote:There you have it, I believe in democracy and doing things through a democratic process, you don't.

That's right he doesn't.

He said that it doesn't matter if a government is elected by the ballot box.

As I said in answer that's a god send to every despot who fancies their chances at a shot at government by using guns.

Amazing huh!!!

I am all for a despotic regime to be brought down even if elected democratically, happy to say that I am and the Muslim Brotherhood are now defined as terrorist, good thing they were got shot of eh Irn, being as they tried to impose unlimited powers abusing the democratic system

Sometimes you write something that shows exactly how little you know about the situation.