egypt about to collapse??

Palmach

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Egypt seems to have two ideologies: secular, rightwing military dictatorship or a gradual creep towards a so-called "Islamic" state. Morsi seemed a stepping stone for both: the military saw in him a poorly equipped and weak leader they could leave in for a while and then take out (which is what happened). The more radical within the Muslim Brotherhood saw him as a temporary moderate face to help them consolidate power, with him eventually being ousted in favour of a hardliner.

Neither of the above represents the vast majority of the Egyptian people, who like most of the Middle East and Africa deserve far better from their regimes than they are getting. Of course, an "Islamist" military dictatorship would be the worst of both worlds. Pakistan's brutal Zia regime of the 1970s (perhaps the template for other militaristic "Islamic" movements West of Pakistan from 1979 to date and to the Taliban in particular) readily springs to mind.

Unfortunately most Muslims are fairly primitive when it comes to democracy. 50% voted for the MB and 25% for the even more extreme Salafists. What does that tell you about the voters mindset? Until there is seperation of Mosque and state Eqypt will not advance.

Reekwind

Palmach wrote: »

Unfortunately most Muslims are fairly primitive when it comes to democracy. 50% voted for the MB and 25% for the even more extreme Salafists. What does that tell you about the voters mindset?

That they didn't want to vote for parties tarred with association with the former regime, as the larger secular parties were? That they predominately voted for the best organised party? That most Egyptians see no contradiction between the Brotherhood's moderate Islam and democracy? Or that Muslims are primitive people who don't 'get' democracy in the same way as people in Kerry South?

Hint: One of those questions is a bigoted stereotype. Try to spot which one

(And, incidentally, only 37% of the electorate voted for the Brotherhood in 2012 elections)

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Unfortunately most Muslims are fairly primitive when it comes to democracy. .........

....not that you'd generalise or anything.

Cody Pomeray

Palmach wrote: »

Unfortunately most Muslims are fairly primitive when it comes to democracy.

Ehh, if states with majority Islamic populations tend not to be democratic, how can you accuse "most Muslims" of being "primitive when it comes to democracy".

In that case, the Islamic demos are not validating non-democratic régimes.

Or maybe you're making a widespread categorization of all Muslims. I'm not sure which is more daft.

jank

In fairness there is truth to that statement. Might be uncomfortable but very true.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

In fairness there is truth to that statement. Might be uncomfortable but very true.

Do please expand.

alastair

Nodin wrote: »

Do please expand.

He's been clear enough - he's an advocate for the 'corrupt, but benign dictatorship' model of governance. :rolleyes:

Palmach

Reekwind wrote: »

That they didn't want to vote for parties tarred with association with the former regime, as the larger secular parties were? That they predominately voted for the best organised party? That most Egyptians see no contradiction between the Brotherhood's moderate Islam and democracy? Or that Muslims are primitive people who don't 'get' democracy in the same way as people in Kerry South?

Hint: One of those questions is a bigoted stereotype. Try to spot which one

(And, incidentally, only 37% of the electorate voted for the Brotherhood in 2012 elections)

Nodin wrote: »

....not that you'd generalise or anything.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ehh, if states with majority Islamic populations tend not to be democratic, how can you accuse "most Muslims" of being "primitive when it comes to democracy".

In that case, the Islamic demos are not validating non-democratic régimes.

Or maybe you're making a widespread categorization of all Muslims. I'm not sure which is more daft.

Well you guys should have no problem in telling me about all those Muslim countries where all citizens are treated equally. It shouldn't be hard. Half of all voters in Eqypt voted for an organisation dedicated to re-establishing the Caliphate and imposing Sharia. A quarter voted for an even worse bunch. After the coup the new Constitution drawn up by the military made in clear Islamic was the states religion and Sharia would be the inspiration for all laws. Furthermore no woman or no non-Muslim male could be President. And these are the supposed secualr guys.

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

Well you guys should have no problem in telling me about all those Muslim countries where all citizens are treated equally. It shouldn't be hard. Half of all voters in Eqypt voted for an organisation dedicated to re-establishing the Caliphate and imposing Sharia. A quarter voted for an even worse bunch. After the coup the new Constitution drawn up by the military made in clear Islamic was the states religion and Sharia would be the inspiration for all laws. Furthermore no woman or no non-Muslim male could be President. And these are the supposed secualr guys.

Egypt had Islam as the state religion prior to the new constitution - no change there. Gender or religion requirements are not part of the presidential electoral process. And it shouldn't need to be said, but democracy often leads to people voting for parties you don't like - that doesn't make the electorate 'primitive'.

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

Egypt had Islam as the state religion prior to the new constitution - no change there. Gender or religion requirements are not part of the presidential electoral process. And it shouldn't need to be said, but democracy often leads to people voting for parties you don't like - that doesn't make the elecrorate 'primitive'.

It does. Would the luvvies who shout down anyone who dares criticise Islam be happy if the BNP took power in the UK?

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

It does. Would the luvvies who shout down anyone who dares criticise Islam be happy if the BNP took power in the UK?

Luvvies? I guess you're simply moving on from the false claims about the constitution then? When did the BNP become the equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

Luvvies? I guess you're simply moving on from the false claims about the constitution then? When did the BNP become the equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood?

The fact that you can't see the similarities says it all. Both are organisations that preach hate against certain groups and both when in power and given a chance would entrench discrimination in the legal system.

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

The fact that you can't see the similarities says it all. Both are organisations that preach hate against certain groups and both when in power and given a chance would entrench discrimination in the legal system.

Given that there's no evidence of the ousted government introducing any discrimination into the legal system, and that you needed to make up some false claims to that end, you'll have to forgive my scepticism. Preaching hate? Any evidence of this, or are we to take you at your word on this too?

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

Given that there's no evidence of the ousted government introducing any discrimination into the legal system, and that you needed to make up some false claims to that end, you'll have to forgive my scepticism. Preaching hate? Any evidence of this, or are we to take you at your word on this too?

Given the fact that they weren't there long enough I doubt you'll find it. You strike me as utterly naive, Go and educate yourself as to what the MB actually stands for before you go and post more drivel.

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

Given the fact that they weren't there long enough I doubt you'll find it. You strike me as utterly naive, Go and educate yourself as to what the MB actually stands for before you go and post more drivel.

So, all mouth, and no trousers. At least we're clear on where you stand - self-proclaimed islamophobe, happy to make up false claims, but rather short on actual substantiated evidence.

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

So, all mouth, and no trousers. At least we're clear on where you stand - self-proclaimed islamophobe, happy to make up false claims, but rather short on actual substantiated evidence.

Here you go................

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1882/muslim-brotherhood-reality

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.pointdebasculecanada.ca/article/1456-the-50-point-manifesto-of-hassan-al-banna.php&date=2011-03-17

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/world/africa/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-explainer

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Well you guys should have no problem in telling me about all those Muslim countries where all citizens are treated equally. It shouldn't be hard. Half of all voters in Eqypt voted for an organisation dedicated to re-establishing the Caliphate and imposing Sharia. A quarter voted for an even worse bunch. After the coup the new Constitution drawn up by the military made in clear Islamic was the states religion and Sharia would be the inspiration for all laws. Furthermore no woman or no non-Muslim male could be President. And these are the supposed secualr guys.

Discriminatory conservative Governments and dictatorships are not the preserve of Muslims. There are many similar in African states with Christian majorities. The last dictatorships in Western Europe only went in the 1970's. It's rather a nonsense to associate religion with the phenomena.

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

Here you go......

What are those links supposed to articulate? Because they certainly don't support any of the claims you made against them.

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

What are those links supposed to articulate? Because they certainly don't support any of the claims you made against them.

Did you read them? They give a good outline of the organisation called the Muslim Brotherhood wants. It sure ain't love peace and save the whales.

Brown Bomber

Palmach wrote: »

Given the fact that they weren't there long enough I doubt you'll find it. You strike me as utterly naive, Go and educate yourself as to what the MB actually stands for before you go and post more drivel.

Can you briefly but precisely (i.e. not "he was very, very Muslim" and then link to Breivik's favorite conspiracy theories site) explain exactly what Morsi did as a democratically elected leader of a soveriegn state that that was so uniquely and spectacularly atrocious that justifies in your own mind his imprisonment, a military coup, the rounding up of the members of a legitimate political party, censoring of the media and the current massacres and future bloodbaths in Egypt.

(the above is assuming that you aren't normally in favour of massacring innocents and prefer democratic government over brutal miltary dictatorships and police states.)

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

Did you read them? They give a good outline of the organisation called the Muslim Brotherhood wants. It sure ain't love peace and save the whales.

Nor are they about anything you claimed for them.

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

Nor are they about anything you claimed for them.

You simply cannot or will not allow anything to rock your pc boat. If you read the links you'd see any sentient being would recognise the quasi fascist nature of the MB mixed with religious fanaticism. Case in point: Morsi promised one female VP and one Christian VP during the election. Once in he refused. Under Sharia no female and no non-Muslim can rule over Muslims. Morsi's administration also brought in many measures to reduce alcohol sales with the aim of banning it. The Muslim Brotherhood also was vociferous in denouncing the UN declaration on Women's rights http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/16/muslim-brotherhood-slams-u-n-women-s-rights-declaration.html

But of course you will ignore this and as per the usual intellectual vacuousness of the multicultural left will shout "Islamophobe!" "bigot!" and report my posts to the mods so conversations you don't like get shut down.

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

You simply cannot or will not allow anything to rock your pc boat. If you read the links you'd see any sentient being would recognise the quasi fascist nature of the MB mixed with religious fanaticism. Case in point: Morsi promised one female VP and one Christian VP during the election. Once in he refused. Under Sharia no female and no non-Muslim can rule over Muslims. Morsi's administration also brought in many measures to reduce alcohol sales with the aim of banning it. The Muslim Brotherhood also was vociferous in denouncing the UN declaration on Women's rights http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/16/muslim-brotherhood-slams-u-n-women-s-rights-declaration.html

But of course you will ignore this and as per the usual intellectual vacuousness of the multicultural left will shout "Islamophobe!" "bigot!" and report my posts to the mods so conversations you don't like get shut down.

You are a self-described islamophobe, so why would you have a problem with someone agreeing that you're such a thing?

Morsi had three women ministers in his cabinet, and three Coptic ministers too, which doesn't really lend much support to your theory above. Did Egypt under Morsi sign up for the UN declaration? Why yes it did. And again - these links don't support the claims you made previously - you're desperately seeking any alternate dirt to throw at them.

Palmach

alastair wrote: »

You are a self-described islamophobe, so why would you have a problem with someone agreeing that you're such a thing?

Morsi had three women ministers in his cabinet, and three Coptic ministers too, which doesn't really lend much support to your theory above. Did Egypt under Morsi sign up for the UN declaration? Why yes it did. And again - these links don't support the claims you made previously - you're desperately seeking any alternate dirt to throw at them.

Ok you didn't read the links I get it.

alastair

Palmach wrote: »

Ok you didn't read the links I get it.

I read them - they didn't support your claims.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Discriminatory conservative Governments and dictatorships are not the preserve of Muslims. There are many similar in African states with Christian majorities. The last dictatorships in Western Europe only went in the 1970's. It's rather a nonsense to associate religion with the phenomena.

I would imagine the problem has to lie with the incumbents - the transition for countries such as Spain and East Germany towards democracy were only made possible through huge inclusionary efforts and a strong leadership that largely sought to benefit the country ahead of their own interests.

What does Morsi do in Egypt? He manages to alienate half of the populace within a year. He had little over 50 percent of the vote, and chose to steam ahead with the islamic agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, even in the face of much more pressing matters relating to the economy and general law and order.

Nodin

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I would imagine the problem has to lie with the incumbents - the transition for countries such as Spain and East Germany towards democracy were only made possible through huge inclusionary efforts and a strong leadership that largely sought to benefit the country ahead of their own interests.

What does Morsi do in Egypt? He manages to alienate half of the populace within a year. He had little over 50 percent of the vote, and chose to steam ahead with the islamic agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, even in the face of much more pressing matters relating to the economy and general law and order.

Indeed. Progress is a slow and often bloody affair.

Palmach

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I would imagine the problem has to lie with the incumbents - the transition for countries such as Spain and East Germany towards democracy were only made possible through huge inclusionary efforts and a strong leadership that largely sought to benefit the country ahead of their own interests.

What does Morsi do in Egypt? He manages to alienate half of the populace within a year. He had little over 50 percent of the vote, and chose to steam ahead with the islamic agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, even in the face of much more pressing matters relating to the economy and general law and order.

There is a one major difference which Nodin (probably deliberately) glosses over. Most authoritarian dictatorships outside the Islamic world are as brutal or even more so than the Islamic ones but they are not doing what they do because god told them to do it. It is the use of religion to bolster an authoritarian agenda that makes Islamic regimes so much more intractable.

Brown Bomber

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

He manages to alienate half of the populace within a year. He had little over 50 percent of the vote, and chose to steam ahead with the islamic agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood

He did not alienate 50% of the vote by pursuing any "Islamic agenda". Islamists represented 75-80% of Egyptians. 50% MB (Moderate-Conservative-Islamist) along with 25% of the various fundamentalist parties. The remaining 20-25% were Christians, secularists and leftists.

So for 25% he was too "Islamic" and for the other 25% he wasn't "Islamic" enough. Quite the difficult balancing act.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

There is a one major difference which Nodin (probably deliberately) glosses over. Most authoritarian dictatorships outside the Islamic world are as brutal or even more so than the Islamic ones but they are not doing what they do because god told them to do it. It is the use of religion to bolster an authoritarian agenda that makes Islamic regimes so much more intractable.

If you want to take me up on something, you can address the post to me. I haven't gone away, you know.


.....it's a stage of development with region specific features. Monarchies classically justified their rule by religion. In addition -

Taoiseach John A Costello wrote:

I have no hesitation in saying that we, as a Government, representing a
people, the overwhelming majority of whom are of the one faith, who have a special position in the Constitution, when we are given advice or warnings by the authoritative people in the Catholic Church, on matters strictly confined to faith and morals, so long as I am here—and I am sure I speak for my colleagues—will give to their directions, given within that scope—and I have no doubt that they do not desire in the slightest to go one fraction of an inch outside the sphere of faith and morals—our complete obedience and allegiance." ... "I am an Irishman second, I am a Catholic first, and I accept without qualification in all respects the teaching of the hierarchy and the church to which I belong.

That grim bit of nonsense was addressed to the Dail in 1951. I don't think it too much to suggest that if one state can move on from that mentality, in time others can also.