egypt about to collapse??

Jonny7

The Egyptian military just need to label the protesters as terrorists which will justify slaughtering them.. it's just a pity they are aligned to the US, so they can't use the ever popular "foreign plot" theme.

Billy86

Usually I would agree that that would work, but to be honest with how they handled the situation during the week I think they have shot themselves in the foot badly, in that regard. They really got called out on their lying about snipers and using armed forces because it was as if they didn't realise they were speaking to the international community as opposed to their own 'subjects' who they have never needed to attempt to be honest with (because if anyone raises their voices, they disappear).

The best example I can think of was the Egyptian ambassador on Sky News trying to tell the anchor that they had used -NO- live ammunition against the protesters... only to be told that a Sky News cameraman had been shot that day (or the day before?) by a military sniper, while in camp with the protesters who seemed reasonably happy to have the media covering the issue. He still denied it, and was pushed by the anchor to then explicitly state that NO LIVE AMMO was used at all by them. I think the penny dropped that this was a news channel who had them using live ammo on camera, so he quickly backtracked to "only a very, very few times for self protection"... meaning he had been lying up to that point.

You don't shoot journalists and cameramen, and you don't directly lie to the media in situations like this. Given how connected the world is these days, the international PR battle is an absolutely key part in conflicts like this (see: Libya) and so massacring the opposition while trying to cover it up will get you nowhere. I don't think this has dawned on them yet, and odds are that it won't until it is too late for them.

Funny though, right as I am typing this Egyptian military forces have broken news claiming to have caught a very prominent character in Al-Qaeda... and they have unleashed tear gas into mosques in Cairo. Given the latter, if the former is not true (I am sceptical to be honest) this again will be another damning blow against the regime.

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

While the coup was underway Morsi's national security adviser warned it would lead to "considerable bloodshed"
...........

....selectively quoting partisan sources in hindsight to score points. Many people didn't expect things to take the turn they did. I'd suggest accepting the fact and moving on.

Sierra Oscar

Nodin wrote: »

....selectively quoting partisan sources in hindsight to score points. Many people didn't expect things to take the turn they did. I'd suggest accepting the fact and moving on.

It was blatantly obvious that this would happen if the Coup d'état went ahead. Morsi still has significant support. With some selective commentary being used you would swear that he was a belligerent dictator with a small sect of supporters.

Lets not forget that Morsi was elected with a majority of support just over a year ago. This crisis is devastating for those trying to promote democracy within the middle east. How do you bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the table after Morsi was robbed of his democratically elected position?

It will lead to serious radicalization, and will have repercussions that extend far beyond Egypt. The current incumbent 'president' is now proposing to dissolve and ban the Muslim Brotherhood - which is the largest organization within Egypt. If that happens the Brotherhood will be forced underground, with a section choosing to pursue jihad.

Nodin

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It was blatantly obvious that this would happen if the Coup d'état went ahead. ........

Given the level of restraint shown by the army previously, it would have been within reason to expect similar here. The army being seemingly hell bent on bloodshed and creating martyrs is not something that would have been expected, because of its counterproductive effect.

Sierra Oscar

Nodin wrote: »

Given the level of restraint shown by the army previously, it would have been within reason to expect similar here. The army being seemingly hell bent on bloodshed and creating martyrs is not something that would have been expected, because of its counterproductive effect.

Morsi was attempting to reduce the power and influence of the Egyptian army across society. I'm not necessarily surprised to see them responding in a vicious manner to protect their interests.

There was a lot more to play during the Coup d'état than just the army attempting to portray themselves as the saviours of Egypt. The top brass in the Egyptian Armed Forces have been at loggerheads with Morsi since he came to power. They saw their opportunity to strike when there was popular protest, and now they are intent on crushing the Muslim Brotherhood to secure their status.

The only problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood have been an underground organization for decades. They are not too keen on having to go back underground, but if they do they will be well organized from day one. Then there is the inevitability that groups within the Muslim Brotherhood, who now see that democracy has failed, will resort to armed opposition against the armed forces.

The Syrian Civil War will pale in comparison to a potential Egyptian Civil War. This conflict might quieten down as the Muslim Brotherhood are initially forced underground, but in line with other conflicts there is the potential for major violence emerging from 3 - 6 months onwards as regrouping occurs underground.

Palmach

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

the model example of a moderate Islamic leader.

There is no such thing.

BuilderPlumber

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Morsi was attempting to reduce the power and influence of the Egyptian army across society. I'm not necessarily surprised to see them responding in a vicious manner to protect their interests.

There was a lot more to play during the Coup d'état than just the army attempting to portray themselves as the saviours of Egypt. The top brass in the Egyptian Armed Forces have been at loggerheads with Morsi since he came to power. They saw their opportunity to strike when there was popular protest, and now they are intent on crushing the Muslim Brotherhood to secure their status.

The only problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood have been an underground organization for decades. They are not too keen on having to go back underground, but if they do they will be well organized from day one. Then there is the inevitability that groups within the Muslim Brotherhood, who now see that democracy has failed, will resort to armed opposition against the armed forces.

The Syrian Civil War will pale in comparison to a potential Egyptian Civil War. This conflict might quieten down as the Muslim Brotherhood are initially forced underground, but in line with other conflicts there is the potential for major violence emerging from 3 - 6 months onwards as regrouping occurs underground.

What is going on in Egypt is awful and should be stopped before it truly spirals out of control. The area around Suez could well become a longterm colony of an unlikely combination of the US, EU, Iran and Saudi Arabia (one thing they ALL agree on is that this remains open and protected to get oil through) while the rest of Egypt could go downhill bigtime.

Remember too that al Qaeda are also in Egypt bigtime and may cause disruption. They could fill a void and current AQ leader Zawahiri of course is Egyptian and one of his goals is to take over Egypt.

North Africa has recently (especially from 2011 on) become very very dangerous. Once, countries like Libya, Tunisia and even Egypt were all considered 'safe' while ones like Mali were poor but relatively stable. But be under no illusion: there is an ethnic faultline across Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan, where there is an Arab north and African south. Though technically not in true north Africa, Nigeria has similar problems.

The Arab spring has inspired a lot. It has inspired North African Arab countries and their Middle East cousins to overthrow dictators. It has inspired Arab minorities in African-ruled states like Mali, Niger, etc. to secede and set up their own countries. It has also inspired Africans to be vigilant of a new threat. Expect more bloodshed in the Saharan nations soon. Who knows what one will be next? It is all so sad.

cyberhog

Nodin wrote: »

....selectively quoting partisan sources in hindsight to score points. Many people didn't expect things to take the turn they did. I'd suggest accepting the fact and moving on.

Anyone who knows anything about Egypt could have predicted it would turn out this way.

For the older generation of Middle East correspondents, including me - I covered Egypt periodically for 30 years...To anyone who knew the country well, it was inevitable that tensions between the army and the Muslim Brotherhood would descend into terrible violence.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/How-social-media-led-U-S-astray-in-Egypt-4739736.php

eireannBEAR

Yes cyberhog i laughed when i read nodins post. we knew this would happen but we assumed it would be the muslim extremists that would be carrying out the attacks.

either way it was obvious that it would involve the spilling if a lot of blood,anyone who thought different were in lala land.

Reekwind

Palmach wrote: »

There is no such thing.

Somebody should probably tell that to Erdoğan

partyatmygaff

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It was blatantly obvious that this would happen if the Coup d'état went ahead. Morsi still has significant support. With some selective commentary being used you would swear that he was a belligerent dictator with a small sect of supporters.

Lets not forget that Morsi was elected with a majority of support just over a year ago.

He was. Now however, a huge swathe of those who supported despise him and the Muslim Brotherhood hence the "second revolution" on June 30th. It's not a clear cut coup d'état, the military may not have liked him or the MB but then again neither did most of his citizens nor a great number of other bodies in the country. He made enemies of everyone barring the Muslim Brotherhood and that was his downfall. To call it a coup d'état as if the military seized the opportunity to finally rid themselves of those competing for power would be inaccurate.

This crisis is devastating for those trying to promote democracy within the middle east. How do you bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the table after Morsi was robbed of his democratically elected position?

Let me get this straight... a country's people is dissatisfied with the person they elected to rule them and think he's having a negative effect on the country and they depose him to hold re-elections, that's theft of his position in your book?

It will lead to serious radicalization, and will have repercussions that extend far beyond Egypt. The current incumbent 'president' is now proposing to dissolve and ban the Muslim Brotherhood - which is the largest organization within Egypt. If that happens the Brotherhood will be forced underground, with a section choosing to pursue jihad.

Nothing new there, they were banned all the way up until 2011 and their one year in power lost them any sympathy the people may have had for them.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The only problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood have been an underground organization for decades. They are not too keen on having to go back underground, but if they do they will be well organized from day one. Then there is the inevitability that groups within the Muslim Brotherhood, who now see that democracy has failed, will resort to armed opposition against the armed forces.

And they really think they can take over the country by force considering most of the country hates them? They cannot defeat the army in battle and they're unlikely to win over the people given their history in power and what they've been doing on the streets the past few days.

They can only keep rule through fear or love and most people in Egypt neither fear nor love them.

Billy86

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Let me get this straight... a country's people is dissatisfied with the person they elected to rule them and think he's having a negative effect on the country and they depose him to hold re-elections, that's theft of his position in your book?

Yes.

There was no election or public poll to do so beforehand, or anything of the sort - it was a military coup. There is a reason why actions like this were never even close to being half considered as a far fetched possibility that might perhaps be worth thinking about down the line with Brian Cowen or over George Bush's second term. Because that is not how democracy works.

partyatmygaff

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes.

There was no election or public poll to do so beforehand, or anything of the sort - it was a military coup. There is a reason why actions like this were never even close to being half considered as a far fetched possibility that might perhaps be worth thinking about down the line with Brian Cowen or over George Bush's second term. Because that is not how democracy works.

Do you need an election or public poll when more than double the number who voted him in signed a petition against him and called for early elections?

A brand new democracy and they see things going from bad to worse and want to nip it in the bud by early elections. It's not "by the book" democracy with neat 4 year terms but it's the people's will and not the military's that ultimately led to his removal from office.

Billy86

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you need an election or public poll when more than double the number who voted him in signed a petition against him and called for early elections?

A brand new democracy and they see things going from bad to worse and want to nip it in the bud by early elections. It's not "by the book" democracy with neat 4 year terms but it's the people's will and not the military's that ultimately led to his removal from office.

I have to be honest in that I have not seen any of these opinion polls or majority calls for re-elections, do you have any links to them?

I do mean that honestly by the way, not being accusatory. Because if there had been majority calls for re-elections that had been ignored, it would change things slightly. Not entirely though, because in a democracy you still have to follow procedures for it to continue to work, that were not followed with the coup. Of course, being such a young democracy (and in an area where it is still a very novel concept to have as a reality) there will be growing pains and accepted 'rules' of the system ignored or challenged along the way, but having the military in a position to seize power whenever they see fit can be quite a dangerous and negative situation.

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

Anyone who knows anything about Egypt could have predicted it would turn out this way.



http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/How-social-media-led-U-S-astray-in-Egypt-4739736.php

You'll pardon me if I don't rush to be wise in hindsight.

partyatmygaff

Billy86 wrote: »

I have to be honest in that I have not seen any of these opinion polls or majority calls for re-elections, do you have any links to them?

Ehm... don't you remember the massive protests that started on June 30th? The Tamarod movement with over 23 million signatures and the 25 million or so who took to the streets to protest against Morsi and the brotherhood? Before things got messy that was the only thing being talked about.

I do mean that honestly by the way, not being accusatory. Because if there had been majority calls for re-elections that had been ignored, it would change things slightly.

The military only stepped in when Morsi refused to stand down following the protests. In fact, he made a speech before June 30th filled with poorly veiled threats against the media and state bodies and ignored the protests until near the end of the 48h ultimatum when he made a final speech ignoring the protestors entirely and pathetically bleated on and on about "legitimancy" while the country raged at him (Funnily enough, he repeated the word over 120 times in his speech).

Not entirely though, because in a democracy you still have to follow procedures for it to continue to work, that were not followed with the coup.

What exactly should they have done? What was the "correct" way to manage the situation?

The man and his party promised to lead and repair the country. Instead they made things and worse and did little else other than to try and bolster their power. One year in and it was that bad, did you expect the people to wait another three years just for the Brotherhood to cement their power and continue to ruin the country?

Of course, being such a young democracy (and in an area where it is still a very novel concept to have as a reality) there will be growing pains and accepted 'rules' of the system ignored or challenged along the way, but having the military in a position to seize power whenever they see fit can be quite a dangerous and negative situation.

The military did not act of their own accord. They acted according to the will of the tens of millions who wanted Morsi and the Brotherhood removed.

old_aussie

partyatmygaff wrote: »

They can only keep rule through fear or love and most people in Egypt neither fear nor love them.

Rule by subjugation seems to be the norm?

Billy86

partyatmygaff - 23/25 million are a lot of people, but does not make up the majority in a nation of 82.5 million.

Reekwind

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ehm... don't you remember the massive protests that started on June 30th? The Tamarod movement with over 23 million signatures and the 25 million or so who took to the streets to protest against Morsi and the brotherhood? Before things got messy that was the only thing being talked about

Talked about by the media in the West, perhaps. At best this represents the degree to which the urban and middle classes had turned against Morsi but it says nothing about the state of affairs outside the capital and in rural areas. You cannot assume that the entire country, or majority thereof, had turned against him on the basis on TV pictures showing packed streets

Which is the problem with relying on rallies: they indicate the ability of factions to mobilise mass support and nothing else. In Egypt both the pro and anti-Morsi factions are able to bring supporters in to the streets but that's not a substitute for democratic practices and it's no basis to assert that one group is clearly the more popular. Not least when the Muslim Brotherhood is staging mass protests of its own

As for the petition, has that been inspected and validated by external observers? Because petitions are notoriously untrustworthy at the best of times; an online petition even more so

The military only stepped in when Morsi refused to stand down following the protests. In fact, he made a speech before June 30th filled with poorly veiled threats against the media and state bodies and ignored the protests until near the end of the 48h ultimatum when he made a final speech ignoring the protestors entirely and pathetically bleated on and on about "legitimancy" while the country raged at him (Funnily enough, he repeated the word over 120 times in his speech).

Let's be clear: Morsi had a democratic mandate. He was legitimately (and yes, the word is important) elected and won his position through the ballot box. There was no corresponding mandate or constitutional justification for his dismissal. Now you may agree or disagree with his policies but there can be no question that his removal was a coup against the legitimate and legal government of Egypt

The military did not act of their own accord. They acted according to the will of the tens of millions who wanted Morsi and the Brotherhood removed.

Of course. The Egyptian military has always been a bastion of democracy, right?

Jonny7

Morsi was deeply unpopular before the coup, polls put dissatisfaction at over 70%.

Billy86

Jonny7 wrote: »

Morsi was deeply unpopular before the coup, polls put dissatisfaction at over 70%.

True, but...

http://www.aaiusa.org/index_ee.php/blog/entry/poll-egyptian-support-for-morsi-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-plummets

- The major opposition groups (the National Salvation Front and the April 6th Movement) combined have a larger support base of almost 35% of the adult population.
- The remaining almost 40% of the population appear to have no confidence in either the government or any of the political parties. The problem is that the opposition is disorganized and lacks clear leadership.

Basically, unless one of those two major opposition groups holds nearly all of that 35% there was not any party who had more support than the Muslim Brotherhood as of June 17th. Unless we could the baffling 40% who don't seem to have any confidence in anything.

The article does however also state that there was 94% have/had confidence in the army, but it doesn't state in which capacity. Whichever capacity it is, it could not be in seizing/holding power because that would have to include the vast majority of the MB as well, which obviously wouldn't have made any sense.

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ehm... don't you remember the massive protests that started on June 30th? The Tamarod movement with over 23 million signatures and the 25 million or so who took to the streets to protest against Morsi and the brotherhood? Before things got messy that was the only thing being talked about.

Who exactly independently verified these signatures btw? You know an election only has legitimacy, if we the results can be verified right? I have seen 0 evidence that this petition was you know accurate, and to try and justify the bloody murder of innocents using numbers that can't be verified is absurd, and to deny that what happened wasn't a coup on the basis of protest is equally absurd, and that assuming that the numbers are accurate, which I find it rather hard to believe tbh, as I have seen figures vary from 17 to 32 million and everything in between.

Now I am sure that a lot of people protested, but people seem to be throwing out larger and larger figures to try and pretend that a coup did not happen, which I find especially galling after 100s have been killed. As bad as the Brotherhood are, they didn't openly murder people in the streets, like the military have, and imho support for them is beyond naive, and is effectively support for murder.

Lets say your numbers are accurate, I don't remember any of the protesters demanding the military go on a murderous rampage. So enough with trying to pretend that coup has not occurred. The army has 0 legitimacy for its campaign of mass murder, which is far worse than anything that the brotherhood pulled while in power.

cyberhog

Nodin wrote: »

You'll pardon me if I don't rush to be wise in hindsight.

It's got nothing to do with being wise after the event. I posted a story on the 3rd of July that pointed out Morsi loyalists were prepared to fight to the death.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85367177&postcount=22

For many Islamists, the removal of Morsi from power would be a coup not just against him but against Islam as they perceive it...

"Any coup of any sort will only pass over our dead bodies," said Mohamed el-Beltagy, a senior Brotherhood official...

Many Islamists – not just in the Brotherhood – would be out of control," said Khalil al-Anani, a specialist on Islamism at Durham University, who warned that the fall of Morsi would radicalise scores of young Islamists.

"It's fine," says Mohamed Tariq, a 16-year-old student at a new pro-Morsi rally in west Cairo. "If he goes down, we'll bring down the president they elect. It's either an Islamist state, or we get martyred."

The difference betweeen us is that I took those warnings seriously whereas you obviously did not.

SeanW

cyberhog wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with being wise after the event. I posted a story on the 3rd of July that pointed out Morsi loyalists were prepared to fight to the death.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85367177&postcount=22

The difference betweeen us is that I took those warnings seriously whereas you obviously did not.

Nodin can always be counted on to selectively ignore Islamic extremism. :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

Billy86 wrote: »

partyatmygaff - 23/25 million are a lot of people, but does not make up the majority in a nation of 82.5 million.

It was never the numbers being bandied about by the media who were simply quoting each other. I've lived in Cairo and been in Tahrir Square many times and it is a physical impossibility that there were the numbers being talked about.

Also, it needs to be remembered the reasons for the protests. The majority weren't protesting Morsi or the MB per se they were protesting the effects of the sabotage of the new democratic state by the deep-state which meant that the state stopped functioning. The police stopped policing, there was no food or jobs and so on.

partyatmygaff

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It was never the numbers being bandied about by the media who were simply quoting each other. I've lived in Cairo and been in Tahrir Square many times and it is a physical impossibility that there were the numbers being talked about.

I know fully well those numbers weren't in just Tahrir Sq., they were estimates from around the country. The protests weren't limited to just Cairo let alone just Tahrir Sq.

Also, it needs to be remembered the reasons for the protests. The majority weren't protesting Morsi or the MB per se they were protesting the effects of the sabotage of the new democratic state by the deep-state which meant that the state stopped functioning. The police stopped policing, there was no food or jobs and so on.

Yet the objective was ultimately to remove Morsi and the Brotherhood. The chants were for him to stand down.

The "deep-state" (if it exists and still has enough power) wasn't the sole reason for his unpopularity. Morsi and the MB shot themselves in the foot by making enemies of the media, the judiciary, the police, the military and ultimately every non-MB supporter in the country. They did that of their own accord and they suffered the consequences. If the alleged deep state exacerbated things the Muslim Brotherhood are still ultimately responsible for their own demise.

Brown Bomber

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I know fully well those numbers weren't in just Tahrir Sq., they were estimates from around the country. The protests weren't limited to just Cairo let alone just Tahrir Sq.

Yet the objective was ultimately to remove Morsi and the Brotherhood. The chants were for him to stand down.

The "deep-state" (if it exists and still has enough power) wasn't the sole reason for his unpopularity. Morsi and the MB shot themselves in the foot by making enemies of the media, the judiciary, the police, the military and ultimately every non-MB supporter in the country. They did that of their own accord and they suffered the consequences. If the alleged deep state exacerbated things the Muslim Brotherhood are still ultimately responsible for their own demise.

The MB/Morsi didn't make enemies with the Mubarak-loyalists in the media, the military, the judiciary, the police and all the rest of sprawling bureacracy built up over decades of western-backed dictatorship post democratic election of Mursi based on any actions post-election.

. The MB have been persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and dissapeared by these same institutions and were sworn enemies for decades. You expect them suddenly to take orders from them?

They created the problem and then provided the solution.

EDIT: I wasnt referring to the 25 + millions but the supposed total for Cairo itself,

The most accurate measure of the feeling of actual Egyptians are not dodgy petitions but internationally monitored elections. Presidential > Mursi Victory. Upper House > 80% Islamist. Lower House > 75% Islamist. Constitutional Referendum > 2/3 voting Egyptians supported it.

junder

Increasingly it seems that Middle East is slowely collapsing at some point the 'west' is going to be sucked in to prevent the 'islamfication' of that entire region. We could be looking at the fault line for world war 3

Palmach

Reekwind wrote: »

Somebody should probably tell that to Erdoğan

Except slowly Erdogan is tightening the Islamic grip on Turkey. The last pork abattoirs have been closed down. New laws have been introduced to restrict the sales of alcohol and only and EU outcry stopped a law punishing adultery. All the while the Gulenists are slowly exerting their influence.

Brown Bomber

junder wrote: »

Increasingly it seems that Middle East is slowely collapsing at some point the 'west' is going to be sucked in to prevent the 'islamfication' of that entire region. We could be looking at the fault line for world war 3

Sucked into? That's funny! Try causing. They don't mind Islamists as long as they are their subservient Islamists. In tandem with their Salafist partners they have joined forces with Islamic crazies like the LIFG to overthrow secular regimes which were in opposition to the "judaisation" of the region.. Saudi Arabia and the UAE funnelled billions to the putcschists the day after the coup (which we can't call a coup ).

Brown Bomber

[QUOTE=Brown Bomber;86068599

EDIT: I wasnt referring to the 25 + millions but the supposed total for Cairo itself,

[/QUOTE]
I don't know if anyone can speak Arabic but I was sent this by an Egyptian friend. It's a video made by an Egyptian Google Earth expert who debunks the claimed number of protestors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ethARuMGEHs

partyatmygaff

A "Google Earth expert" who can estimate the size of Tahrir Square using Google Earth. Why did no one ever think of this before?

Let me see... maybe because Egypt is bigger than Tahrir Square and Cairo. There were protests all around Cairo both downtown and in the suburbs (like Heliopolis and Shubra). That and Egypt has many other cities than Cairo and there were no lack of protests there either.

The intellectual dishonesty is obvious. He claims the media's trying to fool the public with its estimate of 33 million when he's being so disingenuous as to take the highest estimate he could find (33 million) and then attack it by pretending the only protests were in Tahrir Square.

I wouldn't expect honesty from the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. These are the people who'd have their supporters kill innocent people and loot/burn churches and then justify and support it in Arabic whilst playing the peace-loving victim card in English for the ears of the Western media.

Brown Bomber

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A "Google Earth expert" who can estimate the size of Tahrir Square using Google Earth. Why did no one ever think of this before?.

Have you made a better attempt at gauging the figures you appear to be so confident in?

Can you link to the original sources for the claims you are making?

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I wouldn't expect honesty from the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. These are the people who'd have their supporters kill innocent people and loot/burn churches and then justify and support it in Arabic whilst playing the peace-loving victim card in English for the ears of the Western media.

Any proof that they are responsible for this? Seems to me that its the same amount of proof for the numbers behind the protests, and the same proof behind there petition, that is to say not a lot.

Also, you again fail to mention the open murder happening as we speak, which the Egyptian military have been engaged in the past few days....

partyatmygaff

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you made a better attempt at gauging the figures you appear to be so confident in?

Can you link to the original sources for the claims you are making?

Did I say I was confident in 33 million?

As for a source, it doesn't get more original than this, the Freedom and Justice party, Helwan (The MB's political party)
https://www.facebook.com/FJ.Helwan/posts/516124478472316


Translated...

The Pope of the Church was involved in removing the first elected Islamist president
The Pope of the Church accuses Sharia Law of being primitive (literal: accused it of being retarded) and outdated
The Pope sponsors Black Bloc groups to (literal: act as thugs), create chaos and besiege and storm mosques.
The Pope instructed the Copts (Christians) to take part in the 30th June protests to depose Egypt's first elected Islamist president
The Pope objects to articles in the constitution proclaiming Islamic identity and withdrew from the assembly
The Pope was the first to support Sisi in the killing of Muslims and the outcome of that mandate is the 500 who died today.
The Pope sent a memo to the new assembly (who'll write the constitution) asking them to abolish/exclude Sharia-related articles.

After all this, people ask why do they burn churches?

Disclaimer
Burning places of worship is an offence but for the Church to adopt a war against Islam and Muslims is an even greater offense.

Every action has its reaction.

Now check out their English website:
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=31246

Lovely people, non? They take the West for idiots who'll lap up their propaganda and sympathise with their image of being benign peace-loving victims.

partyatmygaff

wes wrote: »

Any proof that they are responsible for this? Seems to me that its the same amount of proof for the numbers behind the protests, and the same proof behind there petition, that is to say not a lot.

Safwat Hegazy, a Muslim Brotherhood leader openly threatening Christians back in December for taking parts in protests against the Sharia-heavy constitution. I don't think burning a few churches or killing a few innocents is beyond them.

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Lovely people, non? They take the West for idiots who'll lap up their propaganda and sympathise with their image of being benign peace-loving victims.

What they said is hardly any worse, that the Coptic Pope supporting the murderous Junta. Does his support for the Junta make him responsible for the murder being carried out by them?

While what they say is certainly nasty (nothing new from the Brotherhood), it hardly proof that they are organizing these attacks, and I would point out that the Egyptian military are not above staging attacks when it suits them. As it stands we don't know who is responsible at this point for these appalling attacks on churches. Its just as likely that even more extreme Salafists are behind this, or that military are, as it is that its the Brotherhood.

junder

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sucked into? That's funny! Try causing. They don't mind Islamists as long as they are their subservient Islamists. In tandem with their Salafist partners they have joined forces with Islamic crazies like the LIFG to overthrow secular regimes which were in opposition to the "judaisation" of the region.. Saudi Arabia and the UAE funnelled billions to the putcschists the day after the coup (which we can't call a coup ).

Sucked in, caused doesn't really matter what langauge you want to use, doesn't change the end result. The 'west' is not going to allow the al qaedafication of the Middle East

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Safwat Hegazy, a Muslim Brotherhood leader openly threatening Christians back in December for taking parts in protests against the Sharia-heavy constitution. I don't think burning a few churches or killing a few innocents is beyond them.

Is he one of the leaders in jail right now? Kind of hard to organize anything from prison, and with the Brotherhood being gunned down in the streets.

Again, I find these claims hard to believe, until we get a bit more proof, considering what the Egyptian military have done in the past, and you know the fact that attacks on churches would undermine the Brotherhoods cause. If they really wanted to hurt Christians, they would surely wait till there back in power, and strike later. The Brotherhood are hardly stupid....

partyatmygaff

wes wrote: »

What they said is hardly any worse, that the Coptic Pope supporting the murderous Junta. Does his support for the Junta make him responsible for the murder being carried out by them?

Do you expect him to support the Muslim Brotherhood who openly hated and threatened him and his people and treated them as second class citizens?

Well before June 30, the church was in support of the campaign for early elections. Once the protests got to the 48h ultimatum stage around July, it sided with the military (as did all the protestors and those opposing Morsi). This was well before the recent violence.

With the situation as perilous as it is, do you expect him to go from supporting one side to sitting on the fence? Instead of having one enemy, he'll make a second.

While what they say is certainly nasty (nothing new from the Brotherhood), it hardly proof that they are organizing these attacks, and I would point out that the Egyptian military are not above staging attacks when it suits them. As it stands we don't know who is responsible at this point for these appalling attacks on churches. Its just as likely that even more extreme Salafists are behind this, or that military are, as it is that its the Brotherhood.

Do you seriously think the military would risk losing the support of over 10 million people. More importantly, do you think they'd have the time to carefully plan and organise staged attacks with their grip on stability as shaky as it is? I highly doubt the military is involved in the attacks.

As for Salafists, they're keeping quiet to try and emerge from this mess to make some gains from the Brotherhood's loss. I can't see them risking being involved with something like this and losing the support of moderate Muslims.

Considering what the Brotherhood's leaders have said before about attacking Christians, I don't see why you find it so hard to fathom that they would be behind this.

Is he one of the leaders in jail right now? Kind of hard to organize anything from prison, and with the Brotherhood being gunned down in the streets.

And what of those not on the streets protesting? Those hiding silent trying to subvert the state through chaos and terrorism?

You'd be foolish to think an organisation as organised and tightly knit as the brotherhood need the freedom of their leaders to be able to organise attacks.

Again, I find these claims hard to believe, until we get a bit more proof, considering what the Egyptian military have done in the past,

Yet you've no problem believing the Brotherhood despite their blatant dishonesty and their past?

and you know the fact that attacks on churches would undermine the Brotherhoods cause.

Following through with a threat made by one of their leaders against a group who they've made enemies of is going to undermine their cause? I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

If they really wanted to hurt Christians, they would surely wait till there back in power, and strike later. The Brotherhood are hardly stupid....

I'm not sure if you're being serious here. The Brotherhood are going to wait until things stabilise and they regain power (which I very much doubt will ever happen) to start attacking the Christian community? That is the antithesis of sense and intelligence. They are a wounded animal attacking anyone and everyone who they consider an enemy.

Brown Bomber

junder wrote: »

Sucked in, caused doesn't really matter what langauge you want to use, doesn't change the end result. The 'west' is not going to allow the al qaedafication of the Middle East

On the contrary, they are actively enabling it.

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.



To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria.



A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Continued http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you expect him to support the Muslim Brotherhood who openly hated and threatened him and his people and treated them as second class citizens?

So he supported the military who also treated him as a 2nd class citizen, where his people were also attacked during there previous regime?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well before June 30, the church was in support of the campaign for early elections. Once the protests got to the 48h ultimatum stage around July, it sided with the military (as did all the protestors and those opposing Morsi). This was well before the recent violence.

The support has been reiterated after the most recent bout of violence (BTW, I was talking about this, not the earlier support):

Egypt’s Coptic Church announces support for army, police

So, let not pretend that the Coptic leadership hasn't supported the murderous junta after they have killed 100s. Pretty odious position to take imho, after so many deaths.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

With the situation as perilous as it is, do you expect him to go from supporting one side to sitting on the fence? Instead of having one enemy, he'll make a second.

Since when have the Egyptian military given a crap about Christians? Plenty of oppression under the Mubarak regime, and the current junta are the exact same people. If the Junta win, they will turn on the Coptic church, when it suits them.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you seriously think the military would risk losing the support of over 10 million people. More importantly, do you think they'd have the time to carefully plan and organise staged attacks with their grip on stability as shaky as it is? I highly doubt the military is involved in the attacks.

Really? They have already alienated millions of Brotherhood supporters, and the military of all groups would be the most able to pull off an attack, and they have been very capable of launching multiple attacks. A few more is hardly a stretch.

Any attack on Christians, will be blamed on the Brotherhood, without any proof at all. They have little to lose in this regard.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As for Salafists, they're keeping quiet to try and emerge from this mess to make some gains from the Brotherhood's loss. I can't see them risking being involved with something like this and losing the support of moderate Muslims.

They have never had support from moderates, and they have already permanently alienated the Brotherhood supporters, with there early support for the coup.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Considering what the Brotherhood's leaders have said before about attacking Christians, I don't see why you find it so hard to fathom that they would be behind this.

It doesn't benefit firstly. Secondly, they are being hammered right now by the Junta. Finally, back in 2011, the military tried to pin various attacks etc on protesters.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

And what of those not on the streets protesting? Those hiding silent trying to subvert the state through chaos and terrorism?

You mean like the Junta and its supporters have already done? I will wait for some proof first, especially, when there are several perfectly likely perpetrators.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You'd be foolish to think an organisation as organised and tightly knit as the brotherhood need the freedom of their leaders to be able to organise attacks.

Except they haven't had any capability to engage in violence for decades, and have been a purely political organization for years. If they were so able to engage in attacks, then why haven't they organized massive violent resistance against the military? What do they have to gain from attacking churches? It make 0 sense for them to do so, and you haven't offered a single good reason for them to so do, and no evidence that they have done it, so being skeptical is a perfectly valid position.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yet you've no problem believing the Brotherhood despite their blatant dishonesty and their past?

Both sides have lied in the past, and the Junta have happily lied during the campaign of mass murder. Seems to me that the guys openly killing people in the streets, are some what less trust worthy.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Following through with a threat made by one of their leaders against a group who they've made enemies of is going to undermine their cause? I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

It will undermine them to the rest of the world, and it will alienate even more of Egyptian society against them. No good reason for them to engage in these attacks at all.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're being serious here. The Brotherhood are going to wait until things stabilise and they regain power (which I very much doubt will ever happen) to start attacking the Christian community? That is the antithesis of sense and intelligence. They are a wounded animal attacking anyone and everyone who they consider an enemy.

No what make no sense is to attack them now, and now you have gone from calling them well organized, to them being a wounded animal lashing out. Which is it then? One or the other? If there a wounded animal, then why are there no mass attacks on the military, the salafists, the secularist, and the liberals? Why no similar coordinated attacks on all the other groups who supported the Junta then?

Brown Bomber

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you seriously think the military would risk losing the support of over 10 million people. More importantly, do you think they'd have the time to carefully plan and organise staged attacks with their grip on stability as shaky as it is? I highly doubt the military is involved in the attacks.
.

In short, yes.

According the UK diplomatic sources quoted in the reports, the former interior minister had built up in over six years a special security system that was managed by 22 officers and that employed a number of former radical Islamists, drug dealers and some security firms to carry out acts of sabotage around the country in case the regime was under threat to collapse.

The proclamation also pointed, sourcing reports on UK intelligence services, that interior ministry officer Maj. Fathi Abdelwahid began in Dec. 11, 2011 preparing Ahmed Mohamed Khaled, who had spent 11 years in Egyptian prisons, to contact an extremist group named Jundullah and coordinate with it the attack on the Alexandria church. "Discipline the Copts"


Khaled reportedly told the group he could assist with providing weapons he had allegedly obtained from Gaza and that the act was meant to "discipline the Copts."
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/07/136723.html

Egyptian Security Guards Withdrew One Hour Before Church Blast, Say Eyewitnesses
http://www.aina.org/news/20110101232613.htm

Meanwhile...

After the bombing, one of Egypt's highest-ranking Muslim shaikhs and Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Goma'a, said, "This is not just an attack on Copts, this is an attack on me and you and all Egyptians, on Egypt and its history and its symbols, by terrorists who know no God, no patriotism, and no humanity."


Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayeb, stated, "An act like this is wholly condemnable in Islam. Muslims are not only obligated not to harm Christians, but to protect and defend them and their places of worship."


After the bombing, thousands of Muslim Egyptians attended church services in Egyptian churches, in order to serve as human shields in case of another attack. They held candlelight vigils outside, as well. The group included everyone from preachers to students to movie stars and politicians.


Moreover, millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross beside a crescent, signifying "Egypt for All."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sumbul-alikaramali/egyptian-muslims-egyptian_b_818829.html

Brown Bomber

Oh, and Jundullah who carried out the bombing of the Church = Mossad
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag?page=full

cyberhog

Who dictates U.S. policies On Egypt?

The NYT seems to have the answer:

Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.

Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it.

When Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, proposed an amendment halting military aid to Egypt, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter to senators on July 31 opposing it, saying it “could increase instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.” Statements from influential lawmakers echoed the letter, and the Senate defeated the measure, 86 to 13, later that day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-by-us-failed-to-sway-egypts-leaders.html?ref=world&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

Reekwind

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I wouldn't expect honesty from the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. These are the people who'd have their supporters kill innocent people and loot/burn churches and then justify and support it in Arabic whilst playing the peace-loving victim card in English for the ears of the Western media.

How ironic. Slating the Muslim Brotherhood for violence within a week of the military massacring hundreds of protesters under the guise of combating terrorism. But we can trust them, right?

eireannBEAR

Reekwind wrote: »

How ironic. Slating the Muslim Brotherhood for violence within a week of the military massacring hundreds of protesters under the guise of combating terrorism. But we can trust them, right?

These people will believe,what rupert murdoch tells them to believe!

Jonny7

The Muslim Brotherhood were not doing a good job, were deeply unpopular and were definitely polarising the population, not exactly the best post-dictatorship administration.

However, the coup was illegal and every soul in Egypt knows this, it cannot be legally justified. It received widespread but muted international condemnation. The subsequent "crackdown" (read murder) by the Egyptian military cannot be justified and will definitely have repurcussions, only question is how deep.

Religion isn't the only thing that needs to be separated from government. Egypt will not move forward another "when-it-suits" democracy or Burmese style military leadership.

Eggy Baby!

Egyptions have a problem with understanding why they had democratic elections.

Egypt is one of many countries that cannot handle democracy.

As soon as the one side/party gets elected, the opposition turn violent and deaths follow, then the destruction of infrastructure.

When will they learn, has their society tried to evolve too quickly.

Bold: You conveniently left out the part where the elected leader attempted to sh*t all over the constitution and turn it into a mere scrap of paper + try to turn the country into Iran lite.

Italics: Western exceptionalism at its worst. It's entirely subjective to think that our type of government is somehow superior on the evolutionary scale to Egypt's. It is also subjective to think that the Egyptian people are not able for the "democratic mantle", that they and their society are inferior in some way.

Let's get this straight. Barring any other unforeseen future events, Egypt was on the path to becoming a democracy before Morsi attempted to turn it into the opposite, leading to this disaster. This may sound like a cold and aloof thing to say, but this current crisis in Egypt is growing pains. All democracies have had them in their early development.

The Egyptian people are well able to determine their own destiny and government, as opposed to being the primitive mob rule savages who are socially unfit for enlightened government as you have suggested.