Egypt - Back with a vengence

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.

It seems that whoever will lead Egypt into a brighter future will have to have military support, and who know what that will take. But I'm reminded of one of my favorite movie scenes here:



Corny accent aside, that was real wisdom Sometimes what revolutions need most is for someone to crack down and brutally oppress the people. When wrong-headed governments can give the people any semblance of freedom, normalcy and dignity, most won't rise up. But drastic oppression usually backfires.

'Sometimes what revolutions need most is for someone to crack down and brutally oppress the people'

Unfortunately Ben, that is exactly what the army have been doing in Egypt for many, many years. Murabak was their man, and in 2011 the people who came out in revolution thought that is what they had got rid off. They voted for Morsi, who still did not have complete control, because that is not the way the Egyptian parliament was set up. Within a year, the army were stirring from the background, with the media that they have always controlled, and used the fact that Morsi was an islamist, even though the whole world recognised he was an extremely moderate islamist, against him, stirred some people up and threw him out in a coup. Those who are frightened of everything to do with Islam, cheered and said they were doing the right thing, because they had no understanding of where it would lead. If a democracy had been allowed, those who wanted to get rid of Morsi could have done so at the next elections, elections were not going to be stopped. By shortsightedly thinking that the army wanted anything to do with democracy, when their aim is, and always has been, total control, they have landed themselves in a place that is even worse than 2011. Every bit of protest is being silenced with guns and imprisonment, and Sisi will win the elections, if and when they ever have them, with a constitution that is coming in soon, that all sides, islamists, moderates, secular, say is fundamentally flawed, but they can do nothing about and democracy will disappear for ever, as have thousands of people.

Military dictatorship or Theocracy, a no brainer on what to chose

Oh dear, sillier and sillier. It's still a theocracy under the army, you obviously know fuck all about the Egyptian constitution.

No its a dictatorship, I suggest you go and study and understand the difference

Oh dear, read the constitution, which is still in place under the army, based on Islam.

Constitution???

Hilarious, it has religious laws indeed.


theocracy
θɪˈɒkrəsi/Submit
noun
1.
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.#

Is that the case here Sassy?

No, you are clueless

In which case, it wasn't a theocracy under Morsi was it, as priests didn't rule. Think you shot yourself in the foot there.

Really, I suggest you look further into this dear Stasi

Bless you Didge, I don't need to, I know what I'm talking about, you so obviously don't. Now dear boy, you carry on with the gloop if it keeps you out of trouble. After all, its like water off a ducks back to me.

You have not a clue on many things as seen Stasi, you think a military dictatorship is a Theocracy now.

So amusing!

Oh dear. The constitution under Morsi and the constitution under the Army, are one and the same. Morsi, is not, and never has been, a priest.

Somehow, in your fuddled little brain, Egypt was a theocracy under Morsi, but not under the Army.

That's whats called trying to have it both ways.

Keep on with the gloop.

Here we go again Stasi desperate to get out of saying the military dictatorship was a theocracy.

Fail

Gloop gloop gloop gloop ...............................................

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

gloop, gloop, gloop, gloop. You wouldn't think there was so much gloop in the world.

Ah bless, stasi with nothing of substance to counter.

Job done

gloop, gloop, gloop, ignore ignore, ladle on some more gloop gloop gloop.

Hilarious, what a child.

Game over

PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious, what a child.

Game over

Gloop? Think you may be right Didge

Yep I agree, total gloop from Didge, which you would realise if you knew anything about Egypt  :D 

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.

The Egyptian military run Egypt in every way possible and they will never let go and the only president they will ever allow is the one of their choosing.

Any opposition to that will be met with guns as happened as the people's revolution was stolen from them in a mass of bloodshed..

Sassy wrote:Yep I agree, total gloop from Didge, which you would realise if you knew anything about Egypt  :D 

Never claimed I did, you did however and I'm surprised to see you resorting to "gloop, gloop, gloop, ignore ignore, ladle on some more gloop gloop gloop." Still time to get back on topic  :D

feelthelove wrote:

Sassy wrote:Yep I agree, total gloop from Didge, which you would realise if you knew anything about Egypt  :D 

Never claimed I did, you did however and I'm surprised to see you resorting to "gloop, gloop, gloop, ignore ignore, ladle on some more gloop gloop gloop." Still time to get back on topic  :D

As Nems has said herself in posts to Didge ON THIS BOARD, it is just going round in circles, hence gloop gloop gloop when he continues to do so.

feelthelove wrote:

Sassy wrote:Yep I agree, total gloop from Didge, which you would realise if you knew anything about Egypt  :D 

Never claimed I did, you did however and I'm surprised to see you resorting to "gloop, gloop, gloop, ignore ignore, ladle on some more gloop gloop gloop." Still time to get back on topic  :D

No worse that calling someone a liar. Nothing to get excited about.

Sassy wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Never claimed I did, you did however and I'm surprised to see you resorting to "gloop, gloop, gloop, ignore ignore, ladle on some more gloop gloop gloop." Still time to get back on topic  :D

As Nems has said herself in posts to Didge ON THIS BOARD, it is just going round in circles, hence gloop gloop gloop when he continues to do so.

Bollocks, if someone else was doing that on threads you would have plenty to say.

Back on topic then...

Living under the Egyptian military is very dangerous if you in any way speak out against them. It' all quite clear now as dissenting voices disappear, get shot or are put on trial.

With the imprisoning of the main dissents that led the revolution against Murabak, its sends a message to all in Egypt. Dissent and your fate is sealed.

Irn Bru wrote:Back on topic then...

Living under the Egyptian military is very dangerous if you in any way speak out against them. It' all quite clear now as dissenting voices disappear, get shot or are put on trial.

Oh well, better than under an Islamic fundamental regime eh?

I'll let that stand. The world acknowledge Morsi was not a fundamentalist, and Didge seems to think that locking up or killing everyone that disagrees with you is ok, providing you are in the Army. Strange man.

the world?

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

Morsi's government were not a theocracy. That's been acknowleged on this thread.

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.

The Egyptian military run Egypt in every way possible and they will never let go and the only president they will ever allow is the one of their choosing.

Any opposition to that will be met with guns as happened as the people's revolution was stolen from them in a mass of bloodshed..

How could they vote him out when he creates a theocracy and there are no more elections or opposition to vote for?

PhilDidge 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.

The Egyptian military run Egypt in every way possible and they will never let go and the only president they will ever allow is the one of their choosing.

Any opposition to that will be met with guns as happened as the people's revolution was stolen from them in a mass of bloodshed..

How could they vote him out when he creates a theocracy and there are no more elections or opposition to vote for?

Where is the evidence that the constitution would be changed to allow that to happen?

If you have it, let's see it.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

How could they vote him out when he creates a theocracy and there are no more elections or opposition to vote for?

Where is the evidence that the constitution would be changed to allow that to happen?

If you have it, let's see it.

The evidence you say? How about him trying to give himself near unlimited powers, which created the second coup, you know the one that Morsi ordered the soldiers to quell the protests

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Where is the evidence that the constitution would be changed to allow that to happen?

If you have it, let's see it.

The evidence you say? How about him trying to give himself near unlimited powers, which created the second coup, you know the one that Morsi ordered the soldiers to quell the protests

The powers were not unlimited and basically he compromised by allowing the military to be left alone. Who appointed Sisi to run the military?

So where is the evidence? You don't have it do you?

And he still hasn't said anything about thinking it ok for the army to kill and jail people.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

The evidence you say? How about him trying to give himself near unlimited powers, which created the second coup, you know the one that Morsi ordered the soldiers to quell the protests

The powers were not unlimited and basically he compromised by allowing the military to be left alone. Who appointed Sisi to run the military?

So where is the evidence? You don't have it do you?

Oh dont be so naive Irn, he tried to give himself unlimited powers, which set off the next revolution.

Stop defending the indefensible

Laters

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The powers were not unlimited and basically he compromised by allowing the military to be left alone. Who appointed Sisi to run the military?

So where is the evidence? You don't have it do you?

Oh dont be so naive Irn, he tried to give himself unlimited powers, which set off the next revolution.

Stop defending the indefensible

Laters

You don't have any evidence then,,,,,,,,,thought so.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Oh dont be so naive Irn, he tried to give himself unlimited powers, which set off the next revolution.

Stop defending the indefensible

Laters

You don't have any evidence then,,,,,,,,,thought so.

Only a revolution as evidence, a tad minor to you, but to the people of Egypt, massive

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You don't have any evidence then,,,,,,,,,thought so.

Only a revolution as evidence, a tad minor to you, but to the people of Egypt, massive

Under the Egyptian military the only revolutions that count are the one's where they get what they want.

Anything else is suppressed with guns.

2011, yes, it was massive, shame they are now in a worse state.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Only a revolution as evidence, a tad minor to you, but to the people of Egypt, massive

Under the Egyptian military the only revolutions that count are the one's where they get what they want.

Anything else is suppressed with guns.

Yes maybe so but better under them than an Islamic regime and that is what the people want, unless you wish they live under myths of course?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Under the Egyptian military the only revolutions that count are the one's where they get what they want.

Anything else is suppressed with guns.

Yes maybe so but better under them than an Islamic regime and that is what the people want, unless you wish they live under myths of course?

The ballot box is the correct place to decide that. Denied that though,,,,weren't they?

So where's your democracy?

Do the people who are killed and imprisoned, including the secular ones that led the last revolution, agree with that do you think Didge?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes maybe so but better under them than an Islamic regime and that is what the people want, unless you wish they live under myths of course?

The ballot box is the correct place to decide that. Denied that though,,,,weren't they?

So where's your democracy?

Except when it is up the revolution eh brother.

Dont make me laugh, you have no problem with Murabak being taken down by not going to the ballot box.

Hypocrite much?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

The ballot box is the correct place to decide that. Denied that though,,,,weren't they?

So where's your democracy?

Except when it is up the revolution eh brother.

Dont make me laugh, you have no problem with Murabak being taken down by not going to the ballot box.

Hypocrite much?

He wasn't put in by the ballot box.

Oh my, and you think you know about Egypt lol

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Except when it is up the revolution eh brother.

Dont make me laugh, you have no problem with Murabak being taken down by not going to the ballot box.

Hypocrite much?

He wasn't put in by the ballot box.

Oh my, and you think you know about Egypt lol

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

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

He wasn't put in by the ballot box.

Oh my, and you think you know about Egypt lol

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