Morsy is out - Military Coup in Egypt

[Reflections]

Wow.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/world/meast/egypt-5-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[Spy Car]

Thanks for the news-flash!

 

Bill

[Momof3littles]

WOw is right!

[Reflections]

Some of the talking heads - oh, ahem, experts - are saying that this is a blow for democracy - because Egypt didn't wait to vote out the guys they didn't like. While I see their point, I disagree. From President Obama to President Morsy:

 

"He stressed that democracy is about more than elections; it is also about ensuring that the voices of all Egyptians are heard and represented by their government, including the many Egyptians demonstrating throughout the country.

 

 

Now we wait to see if the Muslim Brotherhood and other Morsy supporters riot - oh, ahem - lead a counter demonstration.

[*Lulu*]

Thanks for posting this.

[SarahW]

Argh. And this is why running around the globe yelling "You need a democratic government!" to people who have never had such a thing in their culture just.doesn't.work.

 

I think Egypt right now would do well with a good European-style constitutional monarchy.

 

Not that our billions of $$$$ of foreign aid would ever let that happen.

[Reflections]

See, I too think that forcing a democracy just doesn't work. People gotta wanna and then, they have to mold it to their own - whatever that turns out to be. No political systems is cookie cutter. Every person and people are different.

[Reflections]

Not that Egypt isn't trying - I'm just saying in general ...

[Reflections]

Argh. And this is why running around the globe yelling "You need a democratic government!" to people who have never had such a thing in their culture just.doesn't.work.

 

I think Egypt right now would do well with a good European-style constitutional monarchy.

 

Not that our billions of $$$$ of foreign aid would ever let that happen.

 

 

I agree, but, I think that Egypt came by this honestly. I think that they honestly wanted a change.

 

And, I'm not sure I agree about the European style constitutional monarchy thing.... I think that's too close to what was had before.

[SarahW]

 

I agree, but, I think that Egypt came by this honestly. I think that they honestly wanted a change.

 

And, I'm not sure I agree about the European style constitutional monarchy thing.... I think that's too close to what was had before.

 

 

Change yes. But Morsy's first issues came with the concept of limited and balanced powers. A crowned head can put a kabosh on those sorts of shenanigans, and demand new elections if necessary. Which puts controls on the sort of chaos that Egypt is going through right now.

[Spy Car]

The last King (Farouk) didn't work out so well.

 

Bill

[Laurie4b]

Some of the talking heads - oh, ahem, experts - are saying that this is a blow for democracy - because Egypt didn't wait to vote out the guys they didn't like. While I see their point, I disagree. From President Obama to President Morsy:

 

 

 

 

Now we wait to see if the Muslim Brotherhood and other Morsy supporters riot - oh, ahem - lead a counter demonstration.

 

There may be some situations in which if you wait to vote there may be no ability to vote once the time rolls around. Perhaps that would be true for the whole country or just for minorities.

[TravelingChris]

I don't think we will be calling it a military coup. It certainly isn't a tradional one where the Army takes over with no public support. In this case, the majority of Egyptians seemed to be in favor of change, the leaders of the SUnni Muslim biggest Mosque, the Patriach of the Coptic Christians, and the Secular group;s former Un guy, Mohamed ElBarredia, all agreed with the action and the power was handed over to the Chief Justice right away. SInce there are US laws against helping mililitary coups and since we probably do want to help the Egyptians get a legitimate, non radical government, our country will probably not be calling this a military coup, at least not for the time being while hopefully more democratic reforms are instituted.

[Reflections]

 

There may be some situations in which if you wait to vote there may be no ability to vote once the time rolls around. Perhaps that would be true for the whole country or just for minorities.

 

I was thinking this too - that the situation with the government was deteriorating.

[Reflections]

I don't think we will be calling it a military coup. It certainly isn't a tradional one where the Army takes over with no public support. In this case, the majority of Egyptians seemed to be in favor of change, the leaders of the SUnni Muslim biggest Mosque, the Patriach of the Coptic Christians, and the Secular group;s former Un guy, Mohamed ElBarredia, all agreed with the action and the power was handed over to the Chief Justice right away. SInce there are US laws against helping mililitary coups and since we probably do want to help the Egyptians get a legitimate, non radical government, our country will probably not be calling this a military coup, at least not for the time being while hopefully more democratic reforms are instituted.

 

That right there is what made me think that this so called coup was not a power grab by the military - although I never thought it was, but it just sort of confirmed it for me.

[EmilyK]

I have been out of town and feel like I can't find a good, fairly impartial summary of why this happened. Any leads?

 

I'm no fan of the MB, in fact kind of the opposite, but I'm not clear why a party that was democratically elected in fairly recently is now so out of favor that it wouldn't wait for the next election.

[Reflections]

I have been out of town and feel like I can't find a good, fairly impartial summary of why this happened. Any leads?

 

I'm no fan of the MB, in fact kind of the opposite, but I'm not clear why a party that was democratically elected in fairly recently is now so out of favor that it wouldn't wait for the next election.

 

My link at the top is sort of a summary. But I would say that there was a problem right from the get go. Here are some of the links:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/world/meast/egypt-5-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/opinion/husain-morsy-chance/index.html

[EmilyK]

Thanks!

[Reflections]

This professor thinks that Morsy should have placed more Muslim Brotherhood into more key positions and this wouldn't have happened. Interesting, because that's exactly what the critics said he did and that's why they were protesting.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/opinion/ayoob-egypt-military/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[Melissa in Australia]

I don't think we will be calling it a military coup. It certainly isn't a tradional one where the Army takes over with no public support. In this case, the majority of Egyptians seemed to be in favor of change, the leaders of the SUnni Muslim biggest Mosque, the Patriach of the Coptic Christians, and the Secular group;s former Un guy, Mohamed ElBarredia, all agreed with the action and the power was handed over to the Chief Justice right away. SInce there are US laws against helping mililitary coups and since we probably do want to help the Egyptians get a legitimate, non radical government, our country will probably not be calling this a military coup, at least not for the time being while hopefully more democratic reforms are instituted.

IT is called a military coup here in Australia. From what we are hearing is that about half the country was in favour of the military taking over and the other half were in favour of keeping their democratically elected government. When the military takes over and puts the leader of a country in prison it is a military coup. Hopefully they don't end up with civil war.

[ralfy]

Some believe that high oil and food prices (in turn driven by peak oil) are contributing to social unrest in Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, etc., and can be seen in protests and economic crisis in Europe and in the Arab Spring. The same problems are contributing to economic problems for the U.S., China, and others, and increasing aggression by police and military forces.

 

[Kate in Arabia]

So very worried for my many friends in Egypt. When we last visited a few years ago the economic situation was not good, which led to broader troubles. I have such fond memories (dh and I first met there as students), I can only hope this leads to something better...

[Laurie4b]

 

This professor thinks that Morsy should have placed more Muslim Brotherhood into more key positions and this wouldn't have happened. Interesting, because that's exactly what the critics said he did and that's why they were protesting.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/opinion/ayoob-egypt-military/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

[Reflections]

The more I think about this Professor and his opinion, the more he upsets me. Bleg!  

 

 http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/opinion/ayoob-egypt-military/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 

 

From his opinion piece:

 

In hindsight, it appears that he should have brought the military to heel soon after he assumed power and was at the height of his popularity, just as the military was at its lowest point in public esteem. He should have appointed a civilian defense minister, preferably from the Brotherhood and firmly brought the military under civilian control.

 

Furthermore, just like other democratically elected chief executives who function within party systems he should have exercised his right to induct into his cabinet almost exclusively members of the Muslim Brotherhood, thus ensuring the loyalty of the executive branch. In particular, he should have appointed a Muslim Brother as the minister of the interior in charge of the police, with orders to quickly root out those remnants of the Mubarak regime who continued to hold office while conspiring against the elected government.

 

 

 

Well, yeah, if the Muslim Brotherhood controlled the military and police this wouldn't have happened - but what would have??

 

 

I really like what Fareed Zakaria had to say: 

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/04/america-the-undemocratic/?hpt=hp_t1

 

From his opinion piece: 

 

The good news is that the other elements within these societies are fighting back against illiberal democracy – political groups, student movements, opposition parties. The clash between the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood reminds one of the many clashes between kings and lords, the church and the state, that produced the development of Western liberal democracy. It can look very messy while it's happening, neither side has a monopoly of virtue, but the contest between various centers of power over time helped create a system of checks and balances in the West.

So what we're watching around the world might look like crisis and breakdown, but it might turn out to be the road to better government.

 

 

[Shahrazad]

The whole thing was dumb, IMO. They should never have started the first revolution in the first place, IMO. The thing people don't realize is that the cultural differences make it difficult and almost impossible for a country like that to immediately transition to a democracy. They DID elect Morsi democratically and then they decided they didn't want him (as they have with most of the leaders they've had for the last several decades). Whoever he is replaced with, they will likely revolt against him too. There are far too many groups, all of whom have different wishes. There are tons of Morsi supporters very upset about this, plenty of people in favor of the coup, and still others who don't like either side. What a joke.

[Reflections]

The whole thing was dumb, IMO. They should never have started the first revolution in the first place, IMO. The thing people don't realize is that the cultural differences make it difficult and almost impossible for a country like that to immediately transition to a democracy. They DID elect Morsi democratically and then they decided they didn't want him (as they have with most of the leaders they've had for the last several decades). Whoever he is replaced with, they will likely revolt against him too. There are far too many groups, all of whom have different wishes. There are tons of Morsi supporters very upset about this, plenty of people in favor of the coup, and still others who don't like either side. What a joke.

 

I agree with the bolded, wholeheartedly. But I don't think that it was dumb.  But maybe that's because I like to see people revolt when they don't like something - to make a change happen.  I wish we had a little more "revolt" in this country - lots of people here feel like voting is a waste of their time as politicians will do what they want with no regard to us little people, and mostly they are right.

 

Other countries have lots of groups that have lots of wishes/needs/demands and some how they make it work.  I'm sure Egypt will to.  It's okay to have some false starts.

[Shahrazad]

Personally, I don't believe in revolutions to overthrow the government, especially in countries like that but my reasons are a bit too complicated and difficult for me to explain properly to be honest. However, I will say, that it isn't quite a false start since Egypt has overthrown many rulers before Mubarak and it has never ended well for them. I don't see them having a successful government chosen by the people within my lifetime, honestly. But again, just my opinion.

[Reflections]

I agree that it is a very complicated issue and you're right, they may not figure it out in our lifetimes,  - all I am really saying is that I like to see people fighting for more freedoms and to express their ideas of what that is/means and that I hope they find it. 

 

 

[Kate in Arabia]

For the last "several decades" they've only had one ruler -- Mubarak.  He was president for 30 years.  He was Anwar Sadat's vice president, and came into power after Sadat was assassinated; Sadat was in power for 11 years.  He was vice president and became president after Gamal Abdel Nasser had a heart attack and died; Nasser was president for 14 years.  Until recent events there hasn't been an "overthrow" in Egypt since the revolution in 1952.

[poppy]

Personally, I don't believe in revolutions to overthrow the government, especially in countries like that but my reasons are a bit too complicated and difficult for me to explain properly to be honest. However, I will say, that it isn't quite a false start since Egypt has overthrown many rulers before Mubarak and it has never ended well for them. I don't see them having a successful government chosen by the people within my lifetime, honestly. But again, just my opinion.

I do not know if you are an American, but if you are, the first sentence was a funny thing to post on July 4!

[Kim in Appalachia]

This morning I read that close to 40% (or more) of the country is hungry.  I found it odd that the NPR report didn't mention that.  Maybe it did and I missed it. Their report seemed to focus on the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood and the army.  But poverty and hunger fuel unrest more than anything else.  I hope, for the sake the the Egyptian people, that peace can be restored and that the economy can stablilize.  

[Roadrunner]

This morning I read that close to 40% (or more) of the country is hungry. I found it odd that the NPR report didn't mention that. Maybe it did and I missed it. Their report seemed to focus on the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood and the army. But poverty and hunger fuel unrest more than anything else. I hope, for the sake the the Egyptian people, that peace can be restored and that the economy can stablilize.

I was going to say that as well. 82 million people (over 30 million hungry and poor) and only 3% of arable land is an explosive combination. I think having a full tummy is a prerequisite for stability. I am proud of people for standing up for themselves though.

[Shahrazad]

For the last "several decades" they've only had one ruler -- Mubarak.  He was president for 30 years.  He was Anwar Sadat's vice president, and came into power after Sadat was assassinated; Sadat was in power for 11 years.  He was vice president and became president after Gamal Abdel Nasser had a heart attack and died; Nasser was president for 14 years.  Until recent events there hasn't been an "overthrow" in Egypt since the revolution in 1952.

 

You're right. Several decades is the wrong term. But they overthrew OR revolted against: King Farouk, Fuad Thani (II), Mohamed Naguib, Gamal AbdelNasser, Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, and now Mohammed Morsi. Hard to be sympathetic for that. They insisted they wanted a "democracy", elected someone (Morsi) and now have decided they don't like him so they've got rid of him too. Kind of defeats the purpose of a democracy. He still has plenty of supporters but it seems like the 'unrepresented minority' was quite large. Right now, my Egyptian friends are pretty split over whether they are for the military takeover or for Morsi and they seem to be arguing amongst eachother on FB so interesting to watch!

 

I do not know if you are an American, but if you are, the first sentence was a funny thing to post on July 4!

LOL, that was a funny thing to say. I honestly didn't even catch that.

[Spy Car]

You're right. Several decades is the wrong term. But they overthrew OR revolted against: King Farouk, Fuad Thani (II), Mohamed Naguib, Gamal AbdelNasser, Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, and now Mohammed Morsi. Hard to be sympathetic for that. They insisted they wanted a "democracy", elected someone (Morsi) and now have decided they don't like him so they've got rid of him too. Kind of defeats the purpose of a democracy. He still has plenty of supporters but it seems like the 'unrepresented minority' was quite large. Right now, my Egyptian friends are pretty split over whether they are for the military takeover or for Morsi and they seem to be arguing amongst eachother on FB so interesting to watch!

 

LOL, that was a funny thing to say. I honestly didn't even catch that.

From 1954 to 2011 Egypt had 3 leaders: Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak. In the same time-frame the USA had 11 Presidents. Of the Egyptians only Mubarak was over-thrown.

 

Nasser died in office (and still highly popular despite the poor outcome for Egypt in the 67 War, which somewhat diminished his heroic status, but still).

 

Sadat was assinated by an extremist. The USA had a President assinated in the same time-frame (JFK).

 

Mohamed Naguib (who served briefly as President after the overthrow of King Farouk) was a purely interim leder who never had any real power (that was in the hands of Nasser and the Free Officers Movement). Naguib, a figure-head-only, being pushed aside has no real significance relative to Egyptian political stability. The same with Field Marshal Tantawi (who served as an interim leader after the fall of Mubarak. He filled what was designed to be a brief and interim role, and was replaced by Morsi. Neither was "over-thrown."

 

Tis is not exactly a history of "instability." If anything there was probally to much as autocrats viewed the position as President-for-Life.

 

And before Nasser and the Free Officers took de facto power in 1952, Egypt had not been ruled by Egyptians for over 2300 years (not since since 343 BCE). They've been ruled by Persians, Greek Ptolemies, Romans, Byzantines (more than once), by invading Arabs under Umar, by Fatimid Ismaili Shites from their West, by the Kurdish dominated Ayyubids of Saladin, by the Turkic-Causian Mamluk military caste, by the Ottomans, by the French under Napoleon, by the British, and by the largely Albanian line of Muhammed Ali (that ended with King Farouk).

 

True Egyptian self-rule is shockingly new. It is still messy. "Democracy" is about more than having an election to see who gets to be the next autocrat. Morsi did not seem to get that.

 

I'm hoping for better.

 

Bill

[Reflections]

 

True Egyptian self-rule is shockingly new. It is still messy. "Democracy" is about more than having an election to see who gets to be the next autocrat. Morsi did not seem to get that.

 

I'm hoping for better.

 

Bill

 

Yup! :)

[Reflections]

Ms. Hazleton summed my own feelings about it:

 

http://accidentaltheologist.com/2013/07/04/egypt/

 

It's how I feel too!  And in the comments section a poster replied:

 

British rebel MP George Galloway said yesterday on Australian Broadcasting Corporation that “revolution is a process, not an event†which may summarise your last paragraph.

 

[Shahrazad]

From 1954 to 2011 Egypt had 3 leaders: Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak. In the same time-frame the USA had 11 Presidents. Of the Egyptians only Mubarak was over-thrown.

 

Nasser died in office (and still highly popular despite the poor outcome for Egypt in the 67 War, which somewhat diminished his heroic status, but still).

 

Sadat was assinated by an extremist. The USA had a President assinated in the same time-frame (JFK).

 

Mohamed Naguib (who served briefly as President after the overthrow of King Farouk) was a purely interim leder who never had any real power (that was in the hands of Nasser and the Free Officers Movement). Naguib, a figure-head-only, being pushed aside has no real significance relative to Egyptian political stability. The same with Field Marshal Tantawi (who served as an interim leader after the fall of Mubarak. He filled what was designed to be a brief and interim role, and was replaced by Morsi. Neither was "over-thrown."

 

Tis is not exactly a history of "instability." If anything there was probally to much as autocrats viewed the position as President-for-Life.

 

And before Nasser and the Free Officers took de facto power in 1952, Egypt had not been ruled by Egyptians for over 2300 years (not since since 343 BCE). They've been ruled by Persians, Greek Ptolemies, Romans, Byzantines (more than once), by invading Arabs under Umar, by Fatimid Ismaili Shites from their West, by the Kurdish dominated Ayyubids of Saladin, by the Turkic-Causian Mamluk military caste, by the Ottomans, by the French under Napoleon, by the British, and by the largely Albanian line of Muhammed Ali (that ended with King Farouk).

 

True Egyptian self-rule is shockingly new. It is still messy. "Democracy" is about more than having an election to see who gets to be the next autocrat. Morsi did not seem to get that.

 

I'm hoping for better.

 

Bill

 

I said overthrew or revolted against. All of those people I listed were revolted against or had significant movements against them, whether or not said movements were successful. The excuses used were often the same excuses used in the current revolution. I understand why you're misunderstanding my point, because my point is that Egyptians have a long history of this sort of thing and always end up with some form of autocrat in the end. They aren't ready for 'democracy' if that is truly what they want.

 

On another note, I think the Western media is getting more of an impression that the majority are against Morsi and want him gone. There are some pretty major pro-morsi protests going on right now and the pro-Morsi media has been shut down so people are marching in support of him. The military has already opened fire on the pro-Morsi protesters and now there is widespread fighting between the two groups. I know that a lot of what I've heard on the news here gave me the idea that Egyptians in general do not want him but my friends who are currently in Egypt tell me that there is an extremely large number of people who are pro-Morsi and are demonstrating right now and feel that this is a military coup not based on the wishes of the people. The pro-military people, on the other hand, are saying they are not ready for democracy and don't want one because the majority would choose Morsi. So, make of that what you will.

[Roadrunner]

You're right. Several decades is the wrong term. But they overthrew OR revolted against: King Farouk, Fuad Thani (II), Mohamed Naguib, Gamal AbdelNasser, Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, and now Mohammed Morsi. Hard to be sympathetic for that.

 

 

I think I know what you mean. I was thinking about Gibran's poem

 

"Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpeting,

and farewells him with hooting,

only to welcome another with trumpeting again."

 

 

 

 

full poem:

Pity The Nation…

Pity the nation that is full of beliefs and empty of religion.

Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave,

eats a bread it does not harvest,

and drinks a wine that flows not from its own wine-press.

Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,

and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful.

Pity a nation that despises a passion in its dream,

yet submits in its awakening.

Pity the nation that raises not its voice

save when it walks in a funeral,

boasts not except among its ruins,

and will rebel not save when its neck is laid

between the sword and the block.

Pity the nation whose statesman is a fox,

whose philosopher is a juggler,

and whose art is the art of patching and mimicking.

Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpeting,

and farewells him with hooting,

only to welcome another with trumpeting again.

Pity the nation whose sages are dumb with years

and whose strong men are yet in the cradle.

Pity the nation divided into into fragments,

each fragment deeming itself a nation

[Spy Car]

I said overthrew or revolted against. All of those people I listed were revolted against or had significant movements against them, whether or not said movements were successful. The excuses used were often the same excuses used in the current revolution. I understand why you're misunderstanding my point, because my point is that Egyptians have a long history of this sort of thing and always end up with some form of autocrat in the end. They aren't ready for 'democracy' if that is truly what they want.

I don't want to split hairs, but I see a wide gap between "overthrew or revolted against" and having political opponents (including those who would attempt to assinate you).

 

Nasser had opponents, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and (the less numerous) Communists. But he largely crushed them (and other opponents). And—the Brotherhood notwithstanding—Nasser was hugely popular in Egypt. When he tried (half-heartedly or not) to resign following the disaster of the 67 war, there was a "revolt" to keep him.

 

Nasser was not in danger of being overthrown by a popular revolt. Nor was Sadat, who had his own problems with the Muslim Brotherhood—and was assinated by one of their numbers—but Sadat did not (and would not) have fallen to a popular revolt.

 

Murarak did fall after about 30 years in power. His case was insingular until this transition period. The picture of Egyptian leaders falling to mass revolts and uprisings gives a misleading picture IMO. Yes, the Muslim Brothers have been in opposition (and sometimes violent opposition) for sixty years, and have been targets of some pretty brutal repression themselves. I just would not classify the opposition of the Brothers as a "revolt." Maybe just semantics.

 

And yes, the Egyptians have had 2000+ years under autocrats. Morsi did not change that (despite being elected).

 

On another note, I think the Western media is getting more of an impression that the majority are against Morsi and want him gone. There are some pretty major pro-morsi protests going on right now and the pro-Morsi media has been shut down so people are marching in support of him. The military has already opened fire on the pro-Morsi protesters and now there is widespread fighting between the two groups. I know that a lot of what I've heard on the news here gave me the idea that Egyptians in general do not want him but my friends who are currently in Egypt tell me that there is an extremely large number of people who are pro-Morsi and are demonstrating right now and feel that this is a military coup not based on the wishes of the people. The pro-military people, on the other hand, are saying they are not ready for democracy and don't want one because the majority would choose Morsi. So, make of that what you will.

My friends in Cairo (long time resident journalists and also Egyptian nationals) tell me the tide has turned strongly against Morsi. Does he still have supporters? Sure. But many Egyptians voted for him (in an election he narrowly won) with hopes he would not become an autocrat (which was a false hope) and because in the quick run up to elections the Muslim Brotherhood was the only organized party the ground (save those who had been supporters of Mubarak) which gave the Brothers a tremendous electoral advantage it getting votes of those who would not have supported his maximalist agenda one in office. Morsi vastly overreached, and lost support of moderate Egyptians.

 

That he still has support in the Muslim Brotherhood is not a suprise.

 

Bill

[Shahrazad]

Roadrunner, yep...that is my meaning.

Bill, with all due respect (in the US way not the UK way ;) ), when you look at the people who are against Morsi and for the military takeover, they tend to be the type of people you'd be talking about (educated, journalists, liberals...etc), not the common people. There are plenty of Morsi supporters who are not members of the MB. You can see them in the streets protesting (and being shot at right now by the military, 3 people been killed so far by the military for protesting), you can see them even online arguing with the pro-coup people. I don't think either way is going to go well for the Egyptians because a military takeover is very likely to lead back into another Mubarak and they are already acting in ways that most in the West would find objectionable (shutting down media that is not for them, arresting people who are publicly criticising them, attacking protesters...etc). It is not a *good* thing. It is just a different type of bad thing than what they're dealing with with Morsi.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=351466191623389&set=a.351452318291443.1073741826.351446824958659&type=1&relevant_count=1
^That is a picture of the pro-Morsi protests in Cairo.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201375101831920747.html

^ Interesting op ed.
 

Hopefully it is clear from my posts, I'm not pro-anyone. I honestly don't really care who 'wins', I just feel that it will not be a good outcome either way.

[Spy Car]

Bill, with all due respect (in the US way not the UK way ;) ), when you look at the people who are against Morsi and for the military takeover, they tend to be the type of people you'd be talking about (educated, journalists, liberals...etc), not the common people.

No argument there. However, they include people whose expertise, professionalism, objective reporting I have complete (and well earned ) trust. When they told me (prior to the elections) that Morai was winning popular support outside his base in the MB, and that the "liberals" were disorganized and fractured, it cams as no suprise to me that Morsi won.

 

Now there same people are telling me that large numbers of these "common people" are done with Morsi, and celebrated the Army turning him out, I have no reason to believe they are reporting a "biased" story.

 

Does Morsi still have a bloc of support? Obviously.

 

There are plenty of Morsi supporters who are not members of the MB.

Dwindling. It seems he had support from many who now feel he both over-reached with his agenda, and failed to improve the economic situation.

 

You can see them in the streets protesting (and being shot at right now by the military, 3 people been killed so far by the military for protesting), you can see them even online arguing with the pro-coup people. I don't think either way is going to go well for the Egyptians because a military takeover is very likely to lead back into another Mubarak and they are already acting in ways that most in the West would find objectionable (shutting down media that is not for them, arresting people who are publicly criticising them, attacking protesters...etc). It is not a *good* thing. It is just a different type of bad thing than what they're dealing with with Morsi.

To the extent that there are violent protests i expect they will come from the base in the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=351466191623389&set=a.351452318291443.1073741826.351446824958659&type=1&relevant_count=1

^That is a picture of the pro-Morsi protests in Cairo.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/201375101831920747.html

^ Interesting op ed.

 

Hopefully it is clear from my posts, I'm not pro-anyone. I honestly don't really care who 'wins', I just feel that it will not be a good outcome either way.

Egypt has a long way to go. But the only way to bridge away from autocratic rule is to have a system that includes checks and balances, and respect for minority rights. Morsi was going in the wrong direction, as any fair minded observer can see. Whether the next round brings changes that lead to a more "democratic" government (one with limited and divided powers) remains to be seen.

 

But Morsi was not delivering on this, and was attempting to move Egypt in a direction that is unwelcome to the majority there. It is not surprising he was toppled.

 

Bill

[Melissa in Australia]

 

I said overthrew or revolted against. All of those people I listed were revolted against or had significant movements against them, whether or not said movements were successful. The excuses used were often the same excuses used in the current revolution. I understand why you're misunderstanding my point, because my point is that Egyptians have a long history of this sort of thing and always end up with some form of autocrat in the end. They aren't ready for 'democracy' if that is truly what they want.

 

On another note, I think the Western media is getting more of an impression that the majority are against Morsi and want him gone. There are some pretty major pro-morsi protests going on right now and the pro-Morsi media has been shut down so people are marching in support of him. The military has already opened fire on the pro-Morsi protesters and now there is widespread fighting between the two groups. I know that a lot of what I've heard on the news here gave me the idea that Egyptians in general do not want him but my friends who are currently in Egypt tell me that there is an extremely large number of people who are pro-Morsi and are demonstrating right now and feel that this is a military coup not based on the wishes of the people. The pro-military people, on the other hand, are saying they are not ready for democracy and don't want one because the majority would choose Morsi. So, make of that what you will.

the media here is covering this. and how the military that did the coup are firing live ammunition on pro Morsi protesters.  we are hearing it could be as much as half the population that are pro the Morsi

 

 it looks possible that the country could go into civil war.

[Murphy101]

It sounds like the country IS in civil war to me.

[Shahrazad]

I've been a bit busy and haven't been around the forums lately but I was reading the Arabic news and thought of this post. I haven't seen if it has been mentioned in the US news yet but the military went to two towns Ar-Rabaa and An-Nahda and are slaughtering men, women, and children even after they have come out peacefully and surrendered. Reportedly they are burning the bodies to dispose of evidence or a realistic body count. Estimates are close to 300 civilian deaths though.

[Serenade]

I've been a bit busy and haven't been around the forums lately but I was reading the Arabic news and thought of this post. I haven't seen if it has been mentioned in the US news yet but the military went to two towns Ar-Rabaa and An-Nahda and are slaughtering men, women, and children even after they have come out peacefully and surrendered. Reportedly they are burning the bodies to dispose of evidence or a realistic body count. Estimates are close to 300 civilian deaths though.

 

How horrible.

[Arcadia]

News link "Egypt crisis: World leaders condemn crackdown on camps"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23707439

 

"Egypt on edge after at least 278 killed in bloodiest day since revolution" CNN

 

 

[Melissa in Australia]

I've been a bit busy and haven't been around the forums lately but I was reading the Arabic news and thought of this post. I haven't seen if it has been mentioned in the US news yet but the military went to two towns Ar-Rabaa and An-Nahda and are slaughtering men, women, and children even after they have come out peacefully and surrendered. Reportedly they are burning the bodies to dispose of evidence or a realistic body count. Estimates are close to 300 civilian deaths though.

 

here the media is reporting deaths of somewhere between 200 to 2000

[Roadrunner]

I have no words. BBC and Al Jazeera footage is really painful to look at.