Democracy vs Secularism

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

It doesnt matter who was behind them. If they were backed by the people, these efforts were democratic. Maybe unconstitutional, unlawful etc. but not undemocratic.

Why would any of these "people" be "behind" food shortages etc that causes them and their families harship?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So are you agreeing with me that there were in fact anti-democratic efforts to undermine the democractically elected government?

Of course there were anti-democratic efforts to undermine and over throw the democratically elected government. There was a freaking military coup.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who was behind these efforts? What did they involve? And what would be the appropriate course of action for a legitimate government to take against these agents of anti-democracy?

Are you saying that the Morsi government's actions were an "appropriate course of action" to deal with the problems of the various power struggles in Egypt following Mubarracks removal?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not acceptable but more understandable.

All of this is understandable. The Egyptian military want to hold on to the power they have. The Muslim Brotherhood want to implement their fundamentalist Islamic policies. This behaviour is as old as politics itself. Neither side have any real respect for democracy or the rule of law.

I'm glad you admit though that the Muslim Brotherhood's actions while in government were not acceptable.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No surpises there as the greatest threat to their opulent lives is democratic Islamism.

The Muslim Brotherhood do not represent "democratic Islamism", so I'm not sure how you are referring to here.

Why do you keep pretending that the Muslim Brotherhood government acted democratically, or care about democracy?

You appreciate I hope that merely saying the military are bad doesn't automatically mean the Muslim Brotherhood are good. Morsi's government when in power set about systematically subverting the mandate from the revolution, systematically consolidating power and influence and systematically undermining the rule of law.

Saying yeah but the military are also bad, isn't a pass for the Morsi government.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have taken the side of democracy and not the military putsch. How about you?

I take the side of democracy and rule of law too.

Which is why I denounce both the Muslim Brotherhood government and the Egyptian military industrial machine.

Will you say the same thing?

recedite

As you pointed out, Morsi was deposed by a grand alliance of various different interest groups. You have not shown that they were a minority. In Cairo, at least, they were clearly in the majority. Therefore, it was democratic revolution with military assistance, as opposed to a coup.
The army appears to have the backing of the majority of people.
If another election is held soon, and Morsi gets re-elected, then you will be validated...
...Then we can start talking about the tyranny of the majority as a reason to back secularism instead of pure democracy :P

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

I guess the big issue from an A&A viewpoint is that anything calling itself democratic that enforces religious rules is inherently contradictory.

A point not a million miles from what this magnificent kid said. I'm assuming, btw, the video here was taken recently, the translation is accurate, the boy wasn't prompted and the cuts didn't drop anything that might change the tone of what he said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXtDflT38AQ

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

As you pointed out, Morsi was deposed by a grand alliance of various different interest groups. You have not shown that they were a minority. In Cairo, at least, they were clearly in the majority. Therefore, it was democratic revolution with military assistance, as opposed to a coup.
The army appears to have the backing of the majority of people.
If another election is held soon, and Morsi gets re-elected, then you will be validated...
...Then we can start talking about the tyranny of the majority as a reason to back secularism instead of pure democracy :P

Have you even been in Tahrir square? There is absolutely no way it could possibly hold the numbers being bandied about the media who are just quoting each other.

We have 3 accurate and verifiable ways of assessing Egyptian people's political positions:

1 - the presidential elections = MB victory.
2 - Parliament elections = MB victory and 75% support for Islamists overall.
3- Constitution referendum = passing 2:1

Edit: I should add the democratic elections for the upper house which was 80% Islamist.

Brown Bomber

This:

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you saying that the Morsi government's actions were an "appropriate course of action" to deal with the problems of the various power struggles in Egypt following Mubarracks removal?

Is not a response to these questions:

Originally Posted by Brown Bomber
Who was behind these efforts? What did they involve? And what would be the appropriate course of action for a legitimate government to take against these agents of anti-democracy?

I think it us crucial to the discussion to understand the sabotage of the democratic process in Egypt and would therefore appreciate answers before I address the rest of your points.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you even been in Tahrir square? There is absolutely no way it could possibly hold the numbers being bandied about the media who are just quoting each other.

We have 3 accurate and verifiable ways of assessing Egyptian people's political positions:

1 - the presidential elections = MB victory.
2 - Parliament elections = MB victory and 75% support for Islamists overall.
3- Constitution referendum = passing 2:1

Edit: I should add the democratic elections for the upper house which was 80% Islamist.

.....a large number of people supporting something does not nessecarily make it right. While nobody should be persecuted for practicing their faith, similarily no one should be persecuted for rejecting its strictures.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

.....a large number of people supporting something does not nessecarily make it right. While nobody should be persecuted for practicing their faith, similarily no one should be persecuted for rejecting its strictures.

I never said anything about anyone being persecuted. The only people being persecuted in Egypt are the pro-democracy supporters who have seen their first democratically elected civilian President imprisoned, massacres of pro-democracy demonstrators at peaceful protests, the rounding up it's leaders, seizure of their assets and closing of their offices.

It looks like a putsch and quacks like a putsch of the bloody and violent variety of Africa and Latin America.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never said anything about anyone being persecuted. The only people being persecuted in Egypt are the pro-democracy supporters who have seen their first democratically elected civilian President imprisoned, massacres of pro-democracy demonstrators at peaceful protests, the rounding up it's leaders, seizure of their assets and closing of their offices.

It looks like a putsch and quacks like a putsch of the bloody and violent variety of Africa and Latin America.

...it isn't remotely that violent.

What about the rights of the copts, women, secular muslims and Christians in the country?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

...it isn't remotely that violent.

What about the rights of the copts, women, secular muslims and Christians in the country?

3 "women" were killed yesterday for protesting the military coup. They like everyone else should have the same rights as everyone else. I never suggested otherwise.

It must be a truly strange definition of violence you go by.


Killing in Cairo: the full story of the Republican Guards' club shootings

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jul/18/cairo-republican-guard-shooting-full-story#part-one

Like everyone else, Moussa knelt with his back to the barbed wire fence protecting the entrance to the club. A few feet away were Dr Reda Mohamedi, an education lecturer at al-Azhar University, and beyond him Dr Yasser Taha, an al-Azhar biochemistry professor. All three were friends from university days, and had shared a tent that night.


Within the hour, Taha would be dead with a bullet in his neck and Mohamedi would be unconscious, a bullet through his thigh. Moussa would have gunshot wounds in both legs and be missing most of his right index finger.


All three were victims of Egypt's bloodiest state-led massacre since the fall of Hosni Mubarak, in which, according to official figures, at least 51 people were killed by Egyptian security forces and at least 435 injured. Two policemen and one soldier were also killed with 42 injured. The military has said that the assault on the protesters was provoked by a terrorist attack. At about 4am, according to the army's account, 15 armed motorcyclists approached the Republican Guards' club compound. The army said that the motorcyclists fired shots, that people attempted to break into the compound, and that the soldiers then had no choice but to defend their property.


However, a week-long investigation – including interviews with 31 witnesses, local people and medics, as well as analysis of video evidence – found no evidence of the motorcyclist attack and points to a very different narrative, in which the security forces launched a co-ordinated assault on a group of largely peaceful and unarmed civilians.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3 "women" were killed yesterday for protesting the military coup. They like everyone else should have the same rights as everyone else. I never suggested otherwise.

It must be a truly strange definition of violence you go by.

.........

I was in my mid-late teens while the death squads were operating in Latin America, so you'll pardon me if I judge levels of violence in more context than last Saturday night in Glasgow.


Again - What about the rights of the copts, women, secular muslims and Christians in the country?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

I was in my mid-late teens while the death squads were operating in Latin America, so you'll pardon me if I judge levels of violence in more context than last Saturday night in Glasgow.


Again - What about the rights of the copts, women, secular muslims and Christians in the country?

They all had equality enshrined in law through the constitution which has been suspended as a result of the military coup.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They all had equality enshrined in law through the constitution which has been suspended as a result of the military coup.

....doesn't have freedom of expression, doesn't have freedom of religion or lack thereof...and only recognised the Abrahamic faiths (and not all variants of them).

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They all had equality enshrined in law through the constitution which has been suspended as a result of the military coup.

That is not true BB. It is not an equal society when a woman can't report her husband for rape!

PopePalpatine

I wonder BB...let's say that by some freak accident, Ronan Mullen becomes Taoiseach after his party, Opus Ghei, wins the General Election. His party makes moves to turn Ireland into a Catholic theocracy. Would you support him against his opponents, because although he's trying to become a dictator, he was democratically elected?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

....doesn't have freedom of expression, doesn't have freedom of religion or lack thereof...and only recognised the Abrahamic faiths (and not all variants of them).

You only mentioned the "Abrahamic Faiths" yourself. From the Constitution: http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-draft-constitution-translated

• Further, there is no dignity for a country in which women are not honored; women are the sisters of men and partners in all national gains and responsibilities.
• Freedom is a right: freedom of thought, expression and creativity
• Equality and equal opportunities are established for all citizens, men and women, without discrimination or nepotism or preferential treatment, in both rights and duties.
• To that end, the values of tolerance and moderation shall be spread, and the rights and freedoms of all citizens shall be protected without discrimination.
• The canon principles of Egyptian Christians and Jews are the main source of legislation for their personal status laws, religious affairs, and the selection of their spiritual leaders.


• No political party shall be formed that discriminates on the basis of gender, origin or religion.


• The State guarantees the means to achieve justice, equality and freedom, and is committed to facilitating the channels of social charity and solidarity between the members of society
• The State shall ensure safety, security and equal opportunities for all citizens without discrimination.


• The State shall ensure maternal and child health services free of charge, and enable the reconciliation between the duties of a woman toward her family and her work.

  The State shall provide special care and protection to female breadwinners, divorced women and widows.


• Dignity is the right of every human being, safeguarded by the State. Insulting or showing contempt toward any human being shall be prohibited.
• All citizens are equal before the law. They have equal public rights and duties without discrimination.
• Individual freedom is a natural right, safeguarded and inviolable.

etc...

Corkfeen wrote: »

That is not true BB. It is not an equal society when a woman can't report her husband for rape!

I agree. I'd said that equality was a central part of the constitution, which it is.

Nodin wrote: »

Again - What about the rights of the copts, women, secular muslims and Christians in the country?

These women?


Bloodshed will only strengthen our confidence, Women against the Coup said in a Saturday press conference, condemning the deadly clashes that left three women dead and one unconscious in Mansoura the day before.

Or how about the Copts that were murdererd by the military in a terrorist bombing on their Church the same military who have allied with the secularists to carry out a coup?
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/07/136723.html
The Consitution, or more specifically it's most controversial section, article 2 was actually written by the secularists. It was supported by the Coptic Pope and it was supported by El Baradei, the liberal-secularist. El Baradei who is now Vice President of the state despite never being elected by anyone to anything.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree. I'd said that equality was a central part of the constitution, which it is.

...given the frequent references to Sharia, I doubt it.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...the Muslim Brotherhood....] have rejected violence and embraced democracy.

Reports from the BBC appear to disagree:

1. Things deteriorating badly in Egypt, with the Beeb reporting that most of the violence appears to be from islamics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23244940

BBC wrote:

"We will carry out explosions, we will shoulder arms, and nothing other than death will dissuade us from restoring President Morsi to the palace," the newspaper, al-Hayat, quoted a bearded man proclaiming at one of the sit-ins by Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Small numbers of young men are starting to be seen in the crowd wearing the white shrouds of "martyrdom", a theatrical show of how far some say they are prepared to go to return an elected Islamist president to power. Since Mr Morsi's removal, some internet forums have erupted with angry calls for vengeance against Egypt's military, calling it "the enemy of Islam" and declaring police and soldiers to be targets for attack, as they were in southern Egypt during the insurgency of the 1990s.

2. Interview with the father of a now-dead teenager thrown from a roof apparently by MB supporters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23380343

BBC wrote:

"[...] who are these people who use Islam to pull us back into the dark ages?"

3. A guy criticizes the MB on facebook, so the teenage son of a local MB leader murders him. The teenage son is himself then lynched:

http://rt.com/news/egypt-lynch-muslim-brotherhood-829/

4. Since Morsi's deposition, islamic violence against christians has increased:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23337659

Hard to know where it's going to end, but I don't think it's going to end either well or soon and religion is likely to continue to play a major part in making things far worse than they otherwise would be.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think it us crucial to the discussion to understand the sabotage of the democratic process in Egypt and would therefore appreciate answers before I address the rest of your points.

You don't think it is crucial to the discussion to understand the sabotage of the democratic process in Egypt, you think it is only critical to discuss the forces that moved against Morsi's government. You ignore the sabotage Morsi and his government attempted.

No one is under any illusions that the military were not happy with Morsi and attempted to undermine his government through their vast network of industry.

Why though do you continue to paint Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood as the innocent victims in this?

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Reports from the BBC appear to disagree:

1. Things deteriorating badly in Egypt, with the Beeb reporting that most of the violence appears to be from islamics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23244940

2. Interview with the father of a now-dead teenager thrown from a roof apparently by MB supporters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23380343

3. A guy criticizes the MB on facebook, so the teenage son of a local MB leader murders him. The teenage son is himself then lynched:

http://rt.com/news/egypt-lynch-muslim-brotherhood-829/

4. Since Morsi's deposition, islamic violence against christians has increased:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23337659

Hard to know where it's going to end, but I don't think it's going to end either well or soon and religion is likely to continue to play a major part in making things far worse than they otherwise would be.

Yes. Though your isolated incidents don't tell us much it does appear that it will like I said that the moderate MB leadership who went down the peace and democracy route will be sidelined by the it's more radical elements who have argued for a more radical means of pursuing their agenda as the democratic process is rigged.

The military coup will have only proved this to them.

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't think it is crucial to the discussion to understand the sabotage of the democratic process in Egypt, you think it is only critical to discuss the forces that moved against Morsi's government. You ignore the sabotage Morsi and his government attempted.

No one is under any illusions that the military were not happy with Morsi and attempted to undermine his government through their vast network of industry.

Why though do you continue to paint Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood as the innocent victims in this?

You still haven't answered the Q's.

So are you agreeing with me that there were in fact anti-democratic efforts to undermine the democractically elected government?

Who was behind these efforts? What did they involve? And what would be the appropriate course of action for a legitimate government to take against these agents of anti-democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypts-liberals-seek-to-ban-political-islamists-from-power-8724765.html

Egypt’s liberals seek to ban political Islamists from power



Coalition that united to remove Morsi from power looks to turn the screw on Muslim Brotherhood

Democracy...?

Cork boy 55

You cannot have universal suffrage democracy in a nation which has

(a) Very large % of illiterates and poorly educated people
(b) Very large % of very poor
(c) an organised cult movements which can convince the illiterates to vote for an cults party

The solutions are
Increase GDP per captia pf population
increase literacy of population
increase education of population
Ban political parties based on cults in constitution
People should only earn the right to vote until they have a basic level of literacy and education

In Egypt during the election candidates where symbol coded on ballots to allow illiterates to vote for however the soothsayer in the temple was rabble rousing for.
For universal suffrage to work it will require a large educated middle class and a secular political system.
Egypt is not Denmark and will not be for some time maybe never given its demographic growth trajectory therefore it should not dive into the deep end of democracy take it step by step.


In summary
If voting was restricted in Egypt to the literates and educated
The oriental mystery cult parties voter base collapses
Then it should be possible to implement limited democracy
also parties based on oriental mystery cults should be banned.

Brown Bomber

Wow!

Your solution to anti-democracy secularism is to ban religious parties, and remove the voting rights of people you deem haven't reached a certain level of enlightenment.

I didn't think people with such extreme views such as these actually said them out loud.

_______

FYI the MB's members are generally professionals. For example. Morsi is an engineer by education, in the link I posted earlier the men murdered by the army for peacefully protesting the putsch were medical doctors and professors.

It's the secularists who have allied with the dictator's nearest and dearest who have also allied with the fundamentalist Muslims you deride - the beard and sandals types from rural areas.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You still haven't answered the Q's.

I suspect you have zero interest in the answers, but here goes anyway

Who was behind these efforts? What did they involve?

The efforts I'm aware of involved the Egyptian military producing artificial shortages of essential goods, such as petrol, in an effort to make the economic situation appear worse that it really was, in order to contribute to the narrative that the Morsi government was mishandling the economy.

I'm sure that there were others, but that is the primary one I'm familiar with.

And what would be the appropriate course of action for a legitimate government to take against these agents of anti-democracy?

All legal means open to them. For example, I'm not sure what anti-monopoly laws are in Egypt but if they don't have any they should and they should be applied to the military control on the economy.

Now, perhaps you want to join me in denouncing the Morsi government?

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your solution to anti-democracy secularism is to ban religious parties, and remove the voting rights of people you deem haven't reached a certain level of enlightenment.

I think it would be better phrased as "Parties that have no honest interest in promoting a democracy should not take advantage of a democracy".

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be better phrased as "Parties that have no honest interest in promoting a democracy should not take advantage of a democracy".

Right, and the case of Egypt it is and has clearly been the opposition alliance of the secularists/Salafists/dictator loyalists/ leftists who are the the "Parties that have no honest interest in promoting a democracy "who have sought to undermine and sabotage the democratically elected government from day 1 because they lost at the ballot box and ultimately carried out a putsch.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, and the case of Egypt it is and has clearly been the opposition alliance of the secularists/Salafists/dictator loyalists/ leftists who are the the "Parties that have no honest interest in promoting a democracy "who have sought to undermine and sabotage the democratically elected government from day 1 because they lost at the ballot box and ultimately carried out a putsch.

So 9 pages in you still think the Morsi government were interested in democracy and did not attempt to undermine the democratic process? :rolleyes:

You know you can denounce both sides right, you don't have to pick a "good guy"?

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, and the case of Egypt it is and has clearly been the opposition alliance of the secularists/Salafists/dictator loyalists/ leftists who are the the "Parties that have no honest interest in promoting a democracy "who have sought to undermine and sabotage the democratically elected government from day 1 because they lost at the ballot box and ultimately carried out a putsch.

As before, there have been persistent allegations of voter intimidation and vote-rigging by the MB (rendering their "win" at the ballot box questionable), and when Morsi overstepped some private limit of autocracy, the army stepped in to avoid a return to totalitarian rule, thereby protecting democracy (which they could well have been doing; events will prove them right or wrong).

As many people have pointed out to you, you can declare the overthrow an illegal putsch if you wish, but there are other equally-valid interpretations which you are ignoring for political or other reasons.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

As before, there have been persistent allegations of voter intimidation and vote-rigging by the MB (rendering their "win" at the ballot box questionable),

Do you have any idea how utterly preposterous these "allegations" are?

SCAF or Mubarrack's Generals were the interim government and therefore held the power to corrupt the elections.

Do you honestly think that these Generals would be involved in any vote rigging that favoured the MB - their enemy for the past 3 decades who they had been persecuting, killing and torturing. If there was any vote rigging it surely would be in favour of their close ally, Mubarak's Prime Minister.

Presidency - Islamist victory
Upper House - Islamist majority
Parliament - Islamist majority.

Result: Secularist-backed Military coup and people dying on the streets each day.

robindch wrote: »

and when Morsi overstepped some private limit of autocracy, the army stepped in to avoid a return to totalitarian rule, thereby protecting democracy (which they could well have been doing; events will prove them right or wrong).

If you were more familiar with events you would understand that he was backed into a corner.

What specifically do you have a problem with? Was there mitigating circumstances?

And which of his actions were worse than Obama giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?

robindch wrote: »

As many people have pointed out to you, you can declare the overthrow an illegal putsch if you wish, but there are other equally-valid interpretations which you are ignoring for political or other reasons.

I'm not ignoring them. However, they are illegitimate.

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...]
If you were more familiar with events you would understand that he was backed into a corner.
[...]

Can you familiarise us with these events? What made his actions justified?

Brown Bomber wrote:

And which of his actions were worse than Obama giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?

Irrelevant and off-topic imho.

Brown Bomber wrote:

I'm not ignoring them. However, they are illegitimate.

Why do you view them as such, clearly your opponents (in this debate) disagree with this claim. Can you back it up as to why they're illegitimate?

As a side note, the constitution you linked seems to contradict itself in several areas

Article 45
Freedom of thought and opinion shall be guaranteed.

Every individual has the right to express an opinion and to disseminate it verbally, in writing or illustration, or by any other means of publication and expression.

Article 44.
Insult or abuse of all religious messengers and prophets shall be prohibited.

Article 31
Dignity is the right of every human being, safeguarded by the State.

Insulting or showing contempt toward any human being shall be prohibited.

Freedom so long as you keep it within prescribed limitations is not really freedom.

Article 2
Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.



Three —
The individual’s dignity is an extension of the nation’s dignity. Further, there is no dignity for a country in which women are not honored; women are the sisters of men and partners in all national gains and responsibilities.

I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably certain the Islamic Sharia is incompatible with female equality.

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

Can you familiarise us with these events? What made his actions justified? .

Very briefly, this is the timeline:

1. Revolution
2. Military Interim Government
3. Parlimentary Elections. Upper House >> 80% Islamist. Lower House 75% Islamist.
4. Democratic framework agreed.
5. Presidential Elections - MB's Muhammed Mursi defeats military's candidate.
6. MB are mandated by their parliamentary majority in Egypts first free and fair democratic election to set up the committee to draft the constitution as per the agreed framework.
7. The judiciary who are allied with the military dissolve the democratically elected MB-majority parliament on a technicality within months of it's establishment.
8. They are making efforts to also dissolve the upper house and the constitution committee.
9. President Mursi gives himself temporary powers to prevent this happening.
10. He puts the consitution to a referendum and it is supported by 2 out of every 3 voters.
11. He cancels his temporary powers.
12. All this time the sprawling Egyptian bureacracy allied with secularist groups and Gulf-backed Salafists are doing everything in their considerable power to destabilise the freely elected government. Police stop policing, government owned petrol stations stop pumping fuel and so on.
13. Egypt, the victim of 30 years of corrupt dictatorship falls apart.
14. People who can't find jobs or feed the famililies protest - whipped up by the private media controlled by the elite who had been loyal to Mubarrak.
15. Military Coup. Democratically elected President is imprisoned. Media is shut down. Protestors are killed in the streets. Hundreds of people are rounded up and imprisoned and so on.

I assume it is the red text above you have a problem with? I never said it was "justified" but more understandable given the actual circumstances.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Irrelevant and off-topic imho.

Of course it's not irrelevant!

Obama is the Liberal Messiah. The USA puts itself forward as a beacon of freedom a democracy.


It's relevant because it exposes the very obvious double-standards. Unless you can single out something specific President Mursi has done that is worse than "giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?"

Can you...?

Sarky

You really don't like Obama, don't you?

Brown Bomber

Sarky wrote: »

You really don't like Obama, don't you?

I'm against (amongst other things like force-feeding prisoners being held without charge, drone strikes killing children and his secret Somali torture chambers.) ...him... "giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?"

How about you?

nagirrac

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm against (amongst other things like force-feeding prisoners being held without charge, drone strikes killing children and his secret Somali torture chambers.) ...him... "giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?"

How about you?

All of these were put in place by Bush. Just for consistency I assume you were opposed to what Bush was doing as well.

What Obama has not done in fairness is declared war on sovereign nations that posed no threat to the US, resulting in the loss of life and maiming of thousands of US military and who know show many Iraqis, and plunged said country into permanent civil war. Obama's foreign policy in contrast has resulted in very few US deaths and by comparison to Bush orders of magnitude fewer deaths overall.

Not saying Obama is by any means blameless but in comparison to Bush he is a peacekeeper.

Brown Bomber

nagirrac wrote: »

All of these were put in place by Bush. Just for consistency I assume you were opposed to what Bush was doing as well.

What Obama has not done in fairness is declared war on sovereign nations that posed no threat to the US, resulting in the loss of life and maiming of thousands of US military and who know show many Iraqis, and plunged said country into permanent civil war. Obama's foreign policy in contrast has resulted in very few US deaths and by comparison to Bush orders of magnitude fewer deaths overall.

Not saying Obama is by any means blameless but in comparison to Bush he is a peacekeeper.

Yes, I do take your point Bush has his sins but the bolded parts are exlusive to Obama.

force-feeding prisoners being held without charge, drone strikes killing children and his secret Somali torture chambers.) ...him... "giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?"

The only part not bolded, drone strikes, Obama has accelerated. He has as many drone attacks in his first term as Bush had in two terms and even ordered one hours after relelection.

Who is worse Bush or Obama is not the point. Who is worse Mursi or Obama is not the point really either.

The point is that Mursi's supposed tyranny pales in comparison to the leaders of the supposed "free world". The argument that "something had to be done" doesn't hold up.

Put Egypt into an American context -

Obama is elected by the American people in free and fair elections. The Democrats also hold majorities in both the Congress and the Senate.

The Tea Party are outraged at the loss of power. Their count amongst their supporters all the supreme court judges, the military, the media, trade unionists, the Police, the intelligence services, and 99% of every civil servant in every area are hardcore Tea Party supporters and are deeply entrenched in the system.

They ally themselves with every other opposition group and together use their power to destabilise the state by making the average American's life unbearable in the expectation that they will push back against the President.

They create the problem and then provide the solution when the military rolls in and carries out a coup. Thus ending democracy.

Back to the OP, secularists should not support that.

Sarky

So why create this Egypt thread if Obama's your real problem?

legspin

BB's really favourite hobby.

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Very briefly, this is the timeline:

1. Revolution
2. Military Interim Government
3. Parlimentary Elections. Upper House >> 80% Islamist. Lower House 75% Islamist.
4. Democratic framework agreed.
5. Presidential Elections - MB's Muhammed Mursi defeats military's candidate.
6. MB are mandated by their parliamentary majority in Egypts first free and fair democratic election to set up the committee to draft the constitution as per the agreed framework.
7. The judiciary who are allied with the military dissolve the democratically elected MB-majority parliament on a technicality within months of it's establishment.
8. They are making efforts to also dissolve the upper house and the constitution committee.
9. President Mursi gives himself temporary powers to prevent this happening.
10. He puts the consitution to a referendum and it is supported by 2 out of every 3 voters.
11. He cancels his temporary powers.
12. All this time the sprawling Egyptian bureacracy allied with secularist groups and Gulf-backed Salafists are doing everything in their considerable power to destabilise the freely elected government. Police stop policing, government owned petrol stations stop pumping fuel and so on.
13. Egypt, the victim of 30 years of corrupt dictatorship falls apart.
14. People who can't find jobs or feed the famililies protest - whipped up by the private media controlled by the elite who had been loyal to Mubarrak.
15. Military Coup. Democratically elected President is imprisoned. Media is shut down. Protestors are killed in the streets. Hundreds of people are rounded up and imprisoned and so on.

I assume it is the red text above you have a problem with? I never said it was "justified" but more understandable given the actual circumstances.

So do you then admit what he did was out of line? Whether it was understandable or not is not the issue, but whether what he did was wrong. You can understand almost any man's point of view, but it doesn't make it right.
Clearly there is fault with the process in which the democracy of Egypt was set up that allowed the military to take the step you mentioned in point 7.
It sounds to me like dissolving the government is the right thing to do until a better structure is in place rather than allow another dictatorship take root.
I'm not saying the military is completely in the right either, clearly killing protesters is wrong, but I don't think they should have just let Mursi take liberties with the power structure of the state either or Egypt could have ended up right back at square 1.

Brown Bomber wrote:

Of course it's not irrelevant!

Obama is the Liberal Messiah. The USA puts itself forward as a beacon of freedom a democracy.


It's relevant because it exposes the very obvious double-standards. Unless you can single out something specific President Mursi has done that is worse than "giving himself (and using) the right to kill whomever he wants without a trial or giving himself the right to have his military indefinitely detain anyone without trial?"

Can you...?

I don't need to, bringing Obama/Bush/Hitler/Stalin/Ghandi/Mufasa into it doesn't make a difference. If any of the aforementioned do something worse it doesn't make anything President Mursi does better, more justified or more just. Similarly if they do something good, it doesn't effect Mursi's good deeds. Bringing them up is nothing more than a smokescreen and is irrelevant to the topic at hand. You might as well say Obama's fine to do what he likes as long as he doesn't do anything worse than Hitler or Kim Jong-un or any other world leader.

Cork boy 55

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wow!

Your solution to anti-democracy secularism is to ban religious parties, and remove the voting rights of people you deem haven't reached a certain level of enlightenment.

I didn't think people with such extreme views such as these actually said them out loud.

_______
(...)

As an awakened Ultra-secularist and a disciple of the environmental scientific atheism order I would go even further.

Egypt is the most overpopulated region on Earth IMO and is demographically trapped, It has grossly exceeded its Human carrying capacity due to excessive cult related population growth
It has no major migration outlet and its economic development potential is negligible
It is one river valley and a delta.
It needs massive food imports to feed its population.
Its current future is bleak, Economic and Environmental collapse and brutal Civil war await on it current path

The Egyptian population need to awaken and embrace the
environmental scientific atheism order.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

That said, the army has promised early elections, and, given the dreadful history of religiously-inspired polities and Abrahamic/islamic ones in particular, a military coup -- unpleasant and illegal though it is -- is amongst the less awful outcomes.

In the wake of what was an inevitable bloodbath on civilians carried out by the secularist-backed military coup against the democratically-elected government do you stand by your earlier statements?

Is a democratically elected President attempting to handpick his state's judges really more "awful" than massacring women and children?

More than 140 people have been confirmed killed after Egyptian security forces opened fire as they tried to clear two protest camps loyal to deposed president Mohamed Morsi in Cairo.

A month-long state of emergency has been declared as violence spread from the capital to other parts of the country including the Mediterranean city of Alexandria.

A curfew from 7pm to 6am has been declared in Cairo, according to reports, as well as ten other provinces including Alexandria and Suez.

The health ministry put the number of dead in Cairo at 149, with hundreds more injured. But the Muslim Brotherhood claimed hundreds had been killed.

Egypt's vice president, Mohamed ElBaradei, has reportedly announced his resignation.

Sky's Middle East Correspondent Sam Kiley, reporting from inside the Rabaa al Adawiya camp in the capital, said it was "under very heavy gunfire" and was a "massive military assault on largely unarmed civilians in very large numbers".

He said government forces were using machine guns, snipers, AK-47 and M16 rifles and were firing into the crowd.

Kiley added: "There are machine gun rounds, and snipers on the roof, that are preventing people from getting any closer to the field hospital (in the camp).
A media crew is seen next to riot police during clashes with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and supporters of deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi in Giza Security forces at one of the camps in Cairo

"I haven't seen any evidence yet of any weapons on the side of the pro-Morsi camp. The camp is very full of women and children."

He said it was a scene of "extreme chaos and bloodshed" and "many hundreds of troops and interior ministry police and special forces are involved".

"The dead and dying are on the steps of an improvised field hospital. The scenes here are absolutely graphic.

"I have covered many wars and this is as severe a battlefield as I have witnessed, with the exception of scenes in Rwanda. There are dozens and dozens of people who have been shot in the head, neck and upper body."

http://news.sky.com/story/1128329/egypt-hundreds-die-in-raids-on-morsi-camps

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In the wake of what was an inevitable bloodbath on civilians carried out by the secularist-backed military coup against the democratically-elected government do you stand by your earlier statements?

Is a democratically elected President attempting to handpick his state's judges really more "awful" than massacring women and children?


http://news.sky.com/story/1128329/egypt-hundreds-die-in-raids-on-morsi-camps

Sad but irrelevant. There's nothing to stop a democracy doing the exact same thing unfortunately.

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sad but irrelevant. There's nothing to stop a democracy doing the exact same thing unfortunately.

The secular putschists carrying out organised massacres of demonstrators protesting the removal of the democratically elected government is irrelevant in a discussion about when democracy and secularism collide?... sure it is...

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The secular putschists carrying out organised massacres of demonstrators protesting the removal of the democratically elected government is irrelevant in a discussion about when democracy and secularism collide?... sure it is...

It is, because anything bad that happened after was going to contribute to your point. The fact that one side in this case was a corrupt, secular military and the other was a corrupt, non-secular democracy has no bearing on the issue being discussed. Constantly braying about an abuse of power and pointing to it as if secularism is the only factor is frankly ridiculous. Secularism will not make an evil organisation good, and I think everyone would agree that point. On the flip side, however, democracy does not automatically make an evil organisation good either, I think everyone would probably agree that point too. Neither makes a good organisation evil either, but that's beside the point.

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

It is, because anything bad that happened after was going to contribute to your point. The fact that one side in this case was a corrupt, secular military and the other was a corrupt, non-secular democracy has no bearing on the issue being discussed. Constantly braying about an abuse of power and pointing to it as if secularism is the only factor is frankly ridiculous. Secularism will not make an evil organisation good, and I think everyone would agree that point. On the flip side, however, democracy does not automatically make an evil organisation good either, I think everyone would probably agree that point too. Neither makes a good organisation evil either, but that's beside the point.

Isn't evil a religious term? Going to give you a crash course on recent developments in Egypt. 1. Secular dictator overthrown in popular revolution 2. Islamist victory in democratic elections 3. Secularists undermine democracy. 4. Secularist carry out a putsch. 5. Massive peaceful protests. 6. Democracy-destroying secularists make Cairo run with blood.

The point of this thread is to discuss where secularists stand when secularists are the greatest cause of "evil" against the religious. To find out if secularists are supportive of secularism when it is anti-democracy. Egypt is a perfect example of this.

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't evil a religious term? Going to give you a crash course on recent developments in Egypt. 1. Secular dictator overthrown in popular revolution 2. Islamist victory in democratic elections 3. Secularists undermine democracy. 4. Secularist carry out a putsch. 5. Massive peaceful protests. 6. Democracy-destroying secularists make Cairo run with blood.

The point of this thread is to discuss where secularists stand when secularists are the greatest cause of "evil" against the religious. To find out if secularists are supportive of secularism when it is anti-democracy. Egypt is a perfect example of this.

My point was secularism is never anti-democracy. Organisiations who are secularist can be anti-democracy, but that's different.

Morbert

robindch wrote: »

a military coup with promises of elections is better than the islamic dictatorship that Morsi was in the process of building.

I think that promise is evaporating. I remember thinking that if they quickly announced elections after the coup, Egypt could be put on the right path. It seems they've decided to kill civilians instead.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

3. Secularists undermine democracy.

I'm sure most of them had moustaches and ate tahina as well, but I don't hear you moaning about the evils of moustaches or sesame paste.

Do you have anything new to add to the topic? Or at least, anything that's interesting or useful or likely to provoke reasoned debate?

Morbert

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't evil a religious term? Going to give you a crash course on recent developments in Egypt. 1. Secular dictator overthrown in popular revolution 2. Islamist victory in democratic elections 3. Secularists undermine democracy. 4. Secularist carry out a putsch. 5. Massive peaceful protests. 6. Democracy-destroying secularists make Cairo run with blood.

The point of this thread is to discuss where secularists stand when secularists are the greatest cause of "evil" against the religious. To find out if secularists are supportive of secularism when it is anti-democracy. Egypt is a perfect example of this.

Your timeline is wrong. The coup, as abhorrent as it turned out to be, overthrew a dictatorship. Also, the coup has revealed itself to be opposed to secular democracy, and secular democracy is the only system that can save Egypt.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure most of them had moustaches and ate tahina as well, but I don't hear you moaning about the evils of moustaches or sesame paste.

Do you have anything new to add to the topic? Or at least, anything that's interesting or useful or likely to provoke reasoned debate?

You could answer the questions you've ignored if you like?

In the wake of what was an inevitable bloodbath on civilians carried out by the secularist-backed military coup against the democratically-elected government do you stand by your earlier statements?

Is a democratically elected President attempting to handpick his state's judges really more "awful" than massacring women and children?

BuilderPlumber

Secularism

Morbert wrote: »

Your timeline is wrong. The coup, as abhorrent as it turned out to be, overthrew a dictatorship. Also, the coup has revealed itself to be opposed to secular democracy, and secular democracy is the only system that can save Egypt.

The problem with countries like Egypt is that one dictator tends to follow another. Since the 1950s, Egypt has been a military dictatorship (Morsi was never really that powerful: the military tolerated him for a while until they saw an opportunity that the people's love affair with him was over) with the hardline anti Western Nasser (the original Saddam type character! Who died in office), the more moderate Sadat (who was Nasser's friend and succeeded him: was killed by fanatics related to Zawahiri, al Qaeda's current leader, for his moderate views), the corrupt/too long in power Mubarak (told to go by the military) and then Morsi as a front (but the military in real power) and then the military take over completely again! Before that, Egypt was a monarchy, colony, ancient civilisation but never democratic.

Egypt's story in representative of almost the entire Middle East and most of Africa. Secular democracy is what will save all of these but factions within them do not want this to happen and a sizeable portion of the population support religious dictatorship while the military and business classes want a strong military dictatorship that suits their needs.

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You could answer the questions you've ignored if you like?

I'll say it again. They are irrelevant questions. Is what the Nazi government of Germany did 70 odd years ago worse than wiping out every living person in Ireland? Probably not. That doesn't mean it's right to wipe out everyone in Ireland. To quote an old adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right".