Egypt's Regime Target Secular Activists

'm no traitor, says Wael Ghonim as Egypt regime targets secular activists
Figurehead of 2011 uprising, now in exile, defends himself as pro-regime TV channel claims he used revolution for own gain
Thursday 9 January 2014 17.52 GMT

One of the figureheads of Egypt's 2011 uprising says he is staying away from the country "as Egypt no longer welcomes those who are like me".

Wael Ghonim's statement comes amid claims by fellow activists that Egypt's government has returned to the authoritarianism of the pre-2011 era.

Ghonim – who is now based in the United Arab Emirates – first rose to global prominence during demonstrations that led to the fall of formerdictator Hosni Mubarak in February 2011. The founder of a popular Facebook group that criticised Egyptian police brutality, Ghonim used his considerable following on the social media site to promote the protests.

His activism led to an 11-day spell in police custody during the uprising, and despite his protestations, Ghonim subsequently became a poster boy for the revolution, both in and outside Egypt. Among many other plaudits he was one of Time magazine's 100 people of the year.

Three years on, Ghonim once again appears to be an enemy of the establishment, targeted alongside other activists in recent days by a pro-regime television channel, al-Kahera Wal Nas. In a bid to discredit him and the 2011 uprising, the channel aired some of Ghonim's private telephone conversations earlier this month. A presenter claimed the conversations demonstrated that Ghonim had used the revolution for his own gain.

In his first public statement in over six months, Ghonim returned to Facebook this week to condemn the broadcast, which he said "violated the laws and constitutions of any country in the world".

He added: "I have never been a traitor to my country, nor excessive in my principles, nor contrary to law", and said that he would be prepared to return to Egypt to defend his name should any charges be brought against him. Ghonim declined to comment further to the Guardian.

Ghonim is the latest 2011 figurehead to be targeted in recent months, as a crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood supporters of ex-president Mohamed Morsi spread even to those secular activists who called for Morsi's overthrow last July. Ahmed Maher, Alaa Abd el-Fatah and Ahmed Douma – all high-profile activists targeted under both Mubarak and Morsi – are among hundreds of other secular and Islamist campaigners now in jail, after being convicted of breaking a new law that rights groups say severely curbs the right to protest. Eighty-seven Brotherhood supporters were jailed for three years each on Thursday, in the latest and largest round of sentencing. Journalists have also been targeted, with three al-Jazeera journalists – including an award-winning Australian broadcaster, Peter Greste – still detained after being arrested in late December.

The developments have led many leading members of the 2011 protests to express their despair at the situation. Mohamed Hashem, the head of Egypt's leading progressive publishing house, and a hero to revolutionaries, threatened to leave Egypt last year after giving up hope about the political situation. "The revolution came out of a big dream – but it wasn't this," Hashem told the Guardian at the time.

But the revolutionaries' desperation is not necessarily shared by large sections of the population, exhausted by the three years of economic and political chaos that have followed Mubarak's fall. Many may welcome a return to strong and strict governance if it comes hand in hand with economic stability – and argue that next week's referendum on a new constitution is the dawn of a new era.

Ahmad Sarhan, a spokesman for the National Movement party – headed by Mubarak's last prime minister, Ahmed Shafik – said the constitution was the first step towards turning Egypt into a modern, democratic state that enshrined the freedom of every Egyptian, including Wael Ghonim. "I don't think that's a fair narrative," said Sarhan, when asked whether the jailing of activists contradicted the goals of the 2011 uprising. "Just because a few of them committed some kind of unlawful actions, it doesn't mean it's a trend.

"The new constitution is a new start for Egypt," he argued. "It guarantees the right for Wael Ghonim and anyone to find the place they want."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/wael-ghonim-egypt-regime-targets-secular-activists

It just gets worse and worse, and completely predicable eh Irn?

It certainly is but of course we knew that all along and predicted what would happen but it fell on deaf ears as the killing by the military washed the streets with the blood of those that opposed them.

The revolution was stolen - no other words to describe it really.

Irn Bru wrote:
The revolution was stolen - no other words to describe it really.

So...which side are you talking about?

Everyone who protested and thought they had brought about democracy and got rid of Murabak and military rule.

But I recall that this was what happened leading to the demise of the Morsi/MB regime.

You simply don't get it do you?

No...I guess I'm not a true believer. (tg)

Oh that's your latest line is it? A true believer in what? In this case democracy, which they fought long and hard for and were manipulated out of. You never have understood that it was obvious to anyone that knew what was going on, that it was never about Islamists, it was about the military and how they made sure that democracy could not continue. And as we said, once they were allowed to take down a democratically elected government (and it didn't matter what that government was), once the people allowed them to take it down and they had got rid of the supporters of that, they would then come for anyone else who tried to stop them. And so it is.

Told you before, Irn is an expert on the area because of what he does, he knows more about it on the back of his hand that you are Didge will ever know.

True believer is a reference to Eric Hoffer's book. And...Irn is never objective, which leads me to doubt his "expert" claim. But I would rather stick to the issues.

Except you are not sticking to any issues.

Original Quill wrote:No...I guess I'm not a true believer.  (tg)

Quill, the revolution got rid of Mubarak with the intention that it would bring about the end of the iron grip that the Egyptian military had over the country. Now it turns out that after all the work that was done to get the military out they are now back in power and where they will always be until they con the electorate by giving them a president that will be their man. I told you that a few months ago and that's exactly where Egypt is heading.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:No...I guess I'm not a true believer.  (tg)

Quill, the revolution got rid of Mubarak with the intention that it would bring about the end of the iron grip that the Egyptian military had over the country. Now it turns out that after all the work that was done to get the military out they are now back in power and where they will always be until they con the electorate by giving them a president that will be their man. I told you that a few months ago and that's exactly where Egypt is heading.

Up to the point of the Mubarak removal I would have agreed with you...agreed with the movement.  But then Morsi established a new theocratic regime, and Egypt went from the frying pan into the fire.

It's regrettable that the Military was the only institution that could right things, but the only other option was for a whole other country to move in and take over.  But that goes two ways.  As we see, Gaza is now in Iran's hands.  So the Military seems to be the only option for an internal solution.  

We'll just have to wait.  Didn't I hear that they are aiming for elections in a year?

Exactly Quill, all seem to forget that Morsi was trying to change the powers of the President giving him unlimited powers over the judicial system, which who knows what would have happened if allowed to stay in power, because why did he ever need to change this to have more power if it was now a democratic country. The fact is the people spoke again in wanting to remove the Brotherhood, because many felt they had been betrayed and lied to by them and feared it would be Mubarak all over again

Yes I like you want to see democracy, but given the choice between a theocracy or a temp government run by the army, I will always choose the later

You have learnt nothing have you Quill, and you don't seem to have understood what is going on at all.   Zilch, zero, big fat nothing!  And that's really sad when you are supposed to be someone who likes to learn and you have an expert to show you. (Irn, not me, I always had an interest).  The elections will only be held when all the leaders of the apponents of the military regime have been taken out and jailed, when all the media, owned and run by the military, the economy, owned and run by the military (literally, the saying is from needles to rockets) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/08/20138435433181894.html, have been used to make sure there is no dissenting voice.   Now you might call that democrary, I don't.   It's only democracy if your apponents have a voice, and if the media can give all sides of the story.   So, there is no need to wait for elections, Sisi will be President and the Army will run Parliament (not that they ever stopped, even under Morsi, but you don't understand about that either).   And the new constitution that they are dealing with at the moment, puts even more power into the hands of the military.

You always bring it back to Morsi and have no understanding of the fact it would not have mattered who had won, if the military didn't their days were numbered, because the military is never going to release it's hold on Egypt.

PS, how do I know Irn is an expert? I've read his book, not one he keeps talking about, but published, one of many.

Sass wrote:You have learnt nothing have you Quill, and you don't seem to have understood what is going on at all.

Haha...well, certainly not from you. You're too intent on attacking and insulting folks.

But I do listen to some--Irn and Didge, for example. It's interesting to learn about, and I admit that I have much to learn. But we have to sort out the polemics from the truth, and sometimes that takes a lot of work.

Original Quill wrote:

Sass wrote:You have learnt nothing have you Quill, and you don't seem to have understood what is going on at all.

Haha...well, certainly not from you.  You're too intent on attacking and insulting folks.  

But I do listen to some--Irn and Didge, for example.  It's interesting to learn about, and I admit that I have much to learn.  But we have to sort out the polemics from the truth, and sometimes that takes a lot of work.

For some reason this is the bog standard answer from sassy, people like yourself with vast knowledge and intelligence know nothing, me included, which is a tad odd with all you have accomplished in life, having more than any I know, the best understanding of justice and law.

How odd indeed.

Original Quill wrote:

Sass wrote:You have learnt nothing have you Quill, and you don't seem to have understood what is going on at all.

Haha...well, certainly not from you.  You're too intent on attacking and insulting folks.  

But I do listen to some--Irn and Didge, for example.  It's interesting to learn about, and I admit that I have much to learn.  But we have to sort out the polemics from the truth, and sometimes that takes a lot of work.

Didge knows nothing on the subject and you are still saying exactly what you were before. You have only said the above now you know Irn has written a much quoted book. I realise you wouldn't learn from me, but I didn't need Irn to tell me, I already knew what was going on. You just got stuck and theocracy and couldn't look further than the end of your nose.

I rest my case, I know nothing it seems, just because Sassy says so!

I haven't read any book written by Irn. Give me the title and I'll pick it up.

PhilDidge wrote:I rest my case, I know nothing it seems, just because Sassy says so!

Nope, you know nothing because you say so with every post you do on the subject.

Sass, judging from the above, you don't speak well for yourself.  I'm sure you understand.  I don't know anything about a book of Irn's, but at least he doesn't waste his time insulting and abusing everyone.  Hence, I take the time to pay attention to him.

A book is a lot of words strung together, and many authors pay to have their works published.  Until you look into it, it's all quantity and not quality.  So the fact, if so, that someone has a book s/he has written is hardly impressive.  But as I say, I will look at it and then judge.

Just provide me with the title or an ISBN number.

Oh Quill, what a sad little hypercrite you are bless.

Trust me, Irn's the expert, the quality quoted one lol. Hard for you to take that someone knows a hellava lot more than you do, but thats a fact.

Original Quill wrote:Sass, judging from the above, you don't speak well for yourself.  I'm sure you understand.  I don't know anything about a book of Irn's, but at least he doesn't waste his time insulting and abusing everyone.  Hence, I take the time to pay attention to him.

A book is a lot of words strung together, and many authors pay to have their works published.  Until you look into it, it's all quantity and not quality.  So the fact, if so, that someone has a book s/he has written is hardly impressive.  But as I say, I will look at it and then judge.

Just provide me with the title or an ISBN number.

She has actually summed up the Egyptian military and its role in Egypt very well - at least in my eyes she has. People do get angry about a military regime acting in the way the Egyptian military has been doing recently and if you ignore her comments on the basis that they are insulting and abusive then you would be as well ignoring so many others as well.

It's hypocrite, sass. Don't mean to be petty, but you make that mistake every second post.

Haha...or is that how many times you call someone a hypocrite?

Original Quill wrote:It's hypocrite, sass.  Don't mean to be petty, but you make that mistake every second post.

Haha...or is that how many times you call someone a hypocrite?

If you don't mean to be petty then don't be petty.

Just concentrate on the debate Quill.

Original Quill wrote:It's hypocrite, sass.  Don't mean to be petty, but you make that mistake every second post.

Haha...or is that how many times you call someone a hypocrite?

Wow, when you have to resort to being the spelling police, you know you're in trouble and hypercritical lol

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Sass, judging from the above, you don't speak well for yourself.  I'm sure you understand.  I don't know anything about a book of Irn's, but at least he doesn't waste his time insulting and abusing everyone.  Hence, I take the time to pay attention to him.

A book is a lot of words strung together, and many authors pay to have their works published.  Until you look into it, it's all quantity and not quality.  So the fact, if so, that someone has a book s/he has written is hardly impressive.  But as I say, I will look at it and then judge.

Just provide me with the title or an ISBN number.

She has actually summed up the Egyptian military and its role in Egypt very well - at least in my eyes she has. People do get angry about a military regime acting in the way the Egyptian military has been doing recently and if you ignore her comments on the basis that they are insulting and abusive then you would be as well ignoring so many others as well.

She really hasn't, Irn. Sassy is not given to academic thinking. Everything is personal, and she is constantly off abusing someone by the third post.

Frankly, she gets to the second level of analysis or so, and abandons the subject in favour of her insults. So, it's frustrating to someone who would like to hear more...she defeats her own purpose.

Really, I analysed the situation exactly, and you know nothing of my academic achievements, because unlike you, I don't go round shouting about them:

The elections will only be held when all the leaders of the apponents of the military regime have been taken out and jailed, when all the media, owned and run by the military, the economy, owned and run by the military (literally, the saying is from needles to rockets) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/08/20138435433181894.html, have been used to make sure there is no dissenting voice. Now you might call that democrary, I don't. It's only democracy if your apponents have a voice, and if the media can give all sides of the story. So, there is no need to wait for elections, Sisi will be President and the Army will run Parliament (not that they ever stopped, even under Morsi, but you don't understand about that either). And the new constitution that they are dealing with at the moment, puts even more power into the hands of the military.

Unlike you, I do it succinctly and don't use 20 words where one would do, to try and make myself sound clever.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

She has actually summed up the Egyptian military and its role in Egypt very well - at least in my eyes she has. People do get angry about a military regime acting in the way the Egyptian military has been doing recently and if you ignore her comments on the basis that they are insulting and abusive then you would be as well ignoring so many others as well.

She really hasn't, Irn.  Sassy is not given to academic thinking.  Everything is personal, and she is constantly off abusing someone by the third post.

Frankly, she gets to the second level of analysis or so, and abandons the subject in favour of her insults.  So, it's frustrating to someone who would like to hear more...she defeats her own purpose.  

Aren't you getting a bit personal yourself here? Maybe it's best that you take your own advice and don't get personal either.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She really hasn't, Irn.  Sassy is not given to academic thinking.  Everything is personal, and she is constantly off abusing someone by the third post.

Frankly, she gets to the second level of analysis or so, and abandons the subject in favour of her insults.  So, it's frustrating to someone who would like to hear more...she defeats her own purpose.  

Aren't you getting a bit personal yourself here? Maybe it's best that you take your own advice and don't get personal either.

I think pointing out the terms of fair comment, or rules of debate, are fair game in the midst of a discussion. After all, it's not just truth but truth and logic that is essential. So some comment on standards is necessary.

I'm merely saying that this thread has lost its way repeatedly, because of one debater's propensity for abuse. There is no exchange of ideas in the content of this thread...it can't get that far.

The only time the thread has lost it's way is when you try to divert, as above. Now, I summed up the situation very succinctly.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Aren't you getting a bit personal yourself here? Maybe it's best that you take your own advice and don't get personal either.

I think pointing out the terms of fair comment, or rules of debate, are fair game in the midst of a discussion.  After all, it's not just truth but truth and logic that is essential.  So some comment on standards is necessary.

I'm merely saying that this thread has lost its way repeatedly, because of one debater's propensity for abuse.  There is no exchange of ideas in the content of this thread...it can't get that far.

There has been plenty of of discussion on the actual subject but you just don't want to see it preferring instead to focus only on the poster and not on the content offered.
I'm sure you're a big boy Quill and you can handle the subject so why don't you just do that?

Perhaps he'd like the summing up again to refresh his mind:

The elections will only be held when all the leaders of the apponents of the military regime have been taken out and jailed, when all the media, owned and run by the military, the economy, owned and run by the military (literally, the saying is from needles to rockets) http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/08/20138435433181894.html, have been used to make sure there is no dissenting voice. Now you might call that democrary, I don't. It's only democracy if your apponents have a voice, and if the media can give all sides of the story. So, there is no need to wait for elections, Sisi will be President and the Army will run Parliament (not that they ever stopped, even under Morsi, but you don't understand about that either). And the new constitution that they are dealing with at the moment, puts even more power into the hands of the military.

Ah, now here's a surprise, next step in the process as forecast:


Egyptian army chief Abdel Fatah al-Sisi hints he will run for president
General who ousted Mohamed Morsi says he will take yes vote in constitutional referendum as mandate to run for office

Egypt's army chief has given his clearest indication yet that he will run for president. General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the man who ousted Mohamed Morsi following mass protests last July, appeared to tell military colleagues on Saturday that he would view a strong yes vote in this week's constitutional referendum as a mandate to run for office.

"If I run for the presidency, it must be by the request of the people and with a mandate from my army," Sisi said, according to Egypt's state-run news agency, in response to a question at an army lecture. "When Egyptians say something, we obey and I will never turn my back on Egypt."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/egyptian-army-chief-sisi-run-president

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think pointing out the terms of fair comment, or rules of debate, are fair game in the midst of a discussion.  After all, it's not just truth but truth and logic that is essential.  So some comment on standards is necessary.

I'm merely saying that this thread has lost its way repeatedly, because of one debater's propensity for abuse.  There is no exchange of ideas in the content of this thread...it can't get that far.

There has been plenty of of discussion on the actual subject...

Really?  For 1st Grade, perhaps.  Get off the high horse, Irn.

Now, give me a good idea relevant to this thread.  

It appears, even with a great deal of help, you find following what is actually happening in Egypt far too complicated and it obviously goes right over your head, so perhaps you had better leave the thinking, understanding and conclusion drawing to those better able to understand the consequences of the actions that are being taken by the military.

Sassy wrote:It appears, even with a great deal of help, you find following what is actually happening in Egypt far too complicated and it obviously goes right over your head, so perhaps you had better leave the thinking, understanding and conclusion drawing to those better able to understand the consequences of the actions that are being taken by the military.

Stunning, Irn. I'm fascinated. This passage even mentions "Egypt" once.

Gotta move to more productive threads.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

There has been plenty of of discussion on the actual subject...

Really?  For 1st Grade, perhaps.  Get off the high horse, Irn.

Now, give me a good idea relevant to this thread.  

Quill, this thread is not about me, it's about the Egyptian military. However, if you feel the standard of debate offered to you is not up to your required standard then I would suggest you look elsewhere instead of continually disrupting it in the way you are doing now.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:It appears, even with a great deal of help, you find following what is actually happening in Egypt far too complicated and it obviously goes right over your head, so perhaps you had better leave the thinking, understanding and conclusion drawing to those better able to understand the consequences of the actions that are being taken by the military.

Stunning, Irn.  I'm fascinated.  This passage even mentions "Egypt" once.

Gotta move to more productive threads.

Correct, the information has already been given to you, but you cannot comprehend it to discuss it, so it's better you do move on to avoid embarrassing yourself, as it is rather pointless discussing something with you that your bias stops you even considering objectively and you continue to focus on Morsi, when Morsi could have been anyone, he wasn't Army so he was always going to be got rid.

On the whole, seems better you stick to threads more pertinent to your intellectual capacities.

So Sisi appears to want to run for president at the next elections then just as you predicted? With no credible candidates to stand against him it will be a walkover.

Well, he's made sure they are all in prison hasn't he. The new constitution, which will be voted on next month, will probably have the same problem as the last one. Last time, only one third of those who could vote did, which meant it didn't have popular backing. The same is true this time. The Anti-Coup Alliance, a group including many Brotherhood supporters and other religious conservatives, plans to boycott the polls. Many secular and liberal movements are also uncomfortable with the proposed document, being suspicious of the parts enabling civilians to be tried in military courts. I don't blame them. Also, a recent decree by the election committee means they are not going to allow postal votes, even though Egypt receives a lot of money from citizens that live abroad and have always had a postal vote. So Sisi will get his constitution, but without the majority of people voting for it, and will use that to say he has the confidence of the people!

Sassy wrote:Well, he's made sure they are all in prison hasn't he.  The new constitution, which will be voted on next month, will probably have the same problem as the last one.   Last time, only one third of those who could vote did, which meant it didn't have popular backing.   The same is true this time.  The Anti-Coup Alliance, a group including many Brotherhood supporters and other religious conservatives, plans to boycott the polls. Many secular and liberal movements are also uncomfortable with the proposed document, being suspicious of the parts enabling civilians to be tried in military courts.  I don't blame them.  Also, a recent decree by the election committee means they are not going to allow postal votes, even though Egypt receives a lot of money from citizens that live abroad and have always had a postal vote.   So Sisi will get his constitution, but without the majority of people voting for it, and will use that to say he has the confidence of the people!

The Egyptian military won't accept anyone other than their man. That was the prediction when we first debated this issue and that's how it turned out.

It was all so predictable.