Interesting day today- would the MB will accept the democratic election of Shafiq for president? Alternatively, would the army take orders from the MB?
A people's Revolution
- Thread starter Avatar
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
No, in all seriousness, the army is in full rampage mode at the moment. Disbanding parliament for being unconstitutional when there's no constitution, continuing to detain and try civilians in military courts for the slightest offences, issuing constitutonal declarations etc.
They assume powers of parliament, the new president will be sworn in in front of SCAF, they will 'elect' the constituent assembly, no parliament till constitution decided through referendum, the army is independent and makes all final decisions on matters of 'national security'. Can veto war declarations/ideas etc. They can also veto bills in the constitution which is 'against the goals of the revolution'....
Despite some of the at times hilariously hyperbolic propoganda about the MB (my favourite is that it was they who ordered the camels during the revolution and they who stationed snipers to pick off protestors. Not only that but Mursi is a Qatari spy, who was arrested during the revolution but then freed by a Hamas crack squad), Mursi is currently ahead in the country/ 320k vs 200k or so. Though other, apparently more advanced sources, say 850,000 vs 550,000. Long way still to go though.
An interesting point is that Mursi was put forward through a nomination by the MB's party, the FJP. That party no longer has any democratic representation. I wonder if SCAF and the 'objective' judiciary will revisit this particular point in the upcoming months and years....
The Egyptian army needs to stop playing political games in Cairo and deploy in the Sinai. It is in absolutely no-one's interests (and leads to unfortunate and completely unnecessary loss of life) for the sinai to be lawless.
A bit trickey, isn't it? A couple of days ago you expressed the Egyptian people's demand for "revising" the peace treaty, which doesn't necessarily promote the necessary confidence in Israel for sanctioning further deployment of Egyptian forces in Sinai. Who knows what the Egyptians may want to revise next...
But it doesn't require further revising, Israel has already given Egypt permission to deploy more troops in the Sinai.
The Egyptian army indeed increased its presence in Sinai at Israel permission, as required by the existing treaty. Further deployment will require Israel's approval again, unless the Egyptians revise the peace treaty unilaterally because it's "the will of the people". Doing that will be just short of declaration of war.
Really? I was under the impression that Israel had allowed a certain number of troops in and the Egyptian army hadn't fulfilled that quota. I was also under the impression that there was an implicit assumption from Israel that Egypt would be allowed to beef up the presence even further if it would truly stop the attacks.
I stand corrected then, guess I was wrong!
Delaying the result of the election indefinitely...
LOLocracy
LOLocracy
Announcement to come down any minute now.
Global Revolution link covering the announcement
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
al-Jazeera LIVE covering
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
The Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) about to announce their choice between the 2 top run-off winners.
Global Revolution link covering the announcement
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
al-Jazeera LIVE covering
http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/
The Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) about to announce their choice between the 2 top run-off winners.
BBC Breaking News @BBCBreaking
#Egypt's election commission: Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Mursi wins the presidential election
so they changed their minds?
#Egypt's election commission: Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Mursi wins the presidential election
so they changed their minds?
Morsi has won. 51.7% vs 48.3%.
Seems legit. Alongside Tunisia, Egypt seems to have come out of this Arab spring business with a pretty good deal. Libya and hopefully Syria won't be too far behind.
Shafiq supporters chanting down with military rule and the people want execution of the field marshall. This is too funny.
He's an Islamist and from the MB. He will still, ultimately be accountable to and controlled by SCAF. Still, Egypt has a civilian president.
Now, down with Mursi!
Morsi: we will respect and honor all international treaties and agreements.
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2012/06/24/the-game/
This is too funny.He's an Islamist and from the MB. He will still, ultimately be accountable to and controlled by SCAF. Still, Egypt has a civilian president.
Now, down with Mursi!
Morsi: we will respect and honor all international treaties and agreements.
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2012/06/24/the-game/
Be interesting to see how this develops, for the sake of Palestine, I hope Egypt remain civil with Israel, if not then Israel may crack down on the smuggling from Egypt into Palestinian territory.
Never a good idea for Politics to be mixed in with religion in my opinion
Never a good idea for Politics to be mixed in with religion in my opinion
Mubarak was already doing all the cracking down on the smuggling himself.
For starters, I reckon Hamas HQ will move to Cairo. After enjoying the hospitality in Damascus for so long it took Hamas several 1000's Syrian casualties to realise it didn't want to be associated with Assad's brutality and this is an excellent chance for a new home, with a joint ideological background to boot.
The Israeli/Egyptian/GS border triangle is a possible flashpoint, especially when you consider global jihadists littering the Sinai peninsula.
Even more interesting for me is how Mursi feeds 90 million people who decided that Mubarak was the reason for all their country's woes. Criticizing a dictator is much easier than running a country with so many inherent domestic difficulties. I'm sure that given time the MB will instill their own people to the army (see the JDP in Turkey), but this may be a long enough process for the army to be able to guarantee at least another general election process. A country in the mould of "islamist" Turkey is not such bad news for the region, but Egypt is a million miles away from Turkey economically.
Egypt's Morsi says wants to expand Iran ties
Hmmm...this seems to have worked well for the US ME policy.
Hmmm...this seems to have worked well for the US ME policy.
Again HR, I do wonder exactly what you feel a dictator with absolute powers and a regime with tentacles all over the country is actually responsible for if they can't even feed heir own population? I feel like feeding your population should really be an absolute minimum for a head of state. Apparently such things are beyond an absolute dictator though.
And for the record, Egypt's GDP (PPP) per capita is $6500 and its GDP (nominal) per capita $3000. The reality is that the average Egyptian lives on 1200 Egyptian pounds a year, or approximately $200.
Of course though, Mubarak and the regime have no hand in this $2800 a year disappearing from the pockets of the average Egyptian and this money would have gone no way in helping to feed the population.
Mursi will be hamstrung from the very beginning by an apparatus which is still against him, a possibly hostile parliament, SCAF and half of the population which absolutely hates him. One of the SCAF members said earlier that this president will be a transition one, present for 6-9 months until the new constitution is written, when a new round of elections will beheld (I wonder how many Egyptians could have been fed with the money SCAF has spent on all these elections....)
The population has unrealistic expectations of what a democratically elected president can do and Morsi will encounter opposition from the state apparatus at every turn. The people will quickly come to dislike him and the MB and for me, that will be to the country's long term benefit.
And the army won't let the brotherhood come near the army.
Will be a very interesting few months coming ahead though.
My worry is the one thing which could make the Egyptians close ranks behind Mursi. Mubarak, whom you had referred to as a "hero in Israel", was excellent in offering the people an outside evil for venting anger.
What will make Egyptians close rank behind Mursi, a conflict with SCAF? I wouldn't be so sure about that, a large portion of those 48.3% who voted for Shafiq hate everything to do about Mursi and the MB. You should have seen state media during the elections as well, the MB were going to take Egypt the way of Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, Lebanon. Morsi was a Qatari spy, who was improsined by Mubarak and busted out by elite Hamas forces. It was the MB who ordered the camels in during the battle of the camel. The MB have been conducting terrorist attacks in the USA and Russia in the past few years etc etc. Some people believe this. Some people are (rightly) furious with how they have gone about things since Mubarak left. Even against the SCAF, many secular/liberal/nationalist forces are wary of working with them again.
Maybe the best thing about Mursi is how unbelievably boring the man is. He seems pleasant and polite enough but he has zero charisma. Should rid Egyptians who still feel like they need some kind of omnipotent 'father figure' from that feeling for ever.
The US position was to support Mubarak until the point of no return, this revolution was bad news for them. What would you have had them do though? Intervene military? Send him weapons to murder the protesters?
The Yanks did what Israelis had done before- trying to bring change to the Arab world and were bound to fail just as miserably.
Sharon tried to change Lebanon politically by force in 1982 and failed. About a decade later Peres tried his luck with a different approach- the Oslo process which he promised would bring with it a "New Middle East". We've argued enough about allocation of responsibility but I guess we'd agree that the ME is still the same old ME.
Ehat the Yanks did was essentially the same, and in that same order. First cam GWB's school of bombing the Arabs into submission which didn't work and then Obama tried the Peres-like soft approach. With the evident for all outcome it appears that things didn't quite work as anticipated. The Tahrir days were too late for stopping the process which date back to the Cairo speech which spelled the beginning of the end for US Arab allies. Bringing freedom to the Arab world is a noble goal, but islamist rule wasn't in the White House brochure, was it?
Change needs to come from the Arab societies themselves, and not by pulling the carpet from underneath current leaders when no political structure capable of seeing through a peaceful transition.
Sharon tried to change Lebanon politically by force in 1982 and failed. About a decade later Peres tried his luck with a different approach- the Oslo process which he promised would bring with it a "New Middle East". We've argued enough about allocation of responsibility but I guess we'd agree that the ME is still the same old ME.
Ehat the Yanks did was essentially the same, and in that same order. First cam GWB's school of bombing the Arabs into submission which didn't work and then Obama tried the Peres-like soft approach. With the evident for all outcome it appears that things didn't quite work as anticipated. The Tahrir days were too late for stopping the process which date back to the Cairo speech which spelled the beginning of the end for US Arab allies. Bringing freedom to the Arab world is a noble goal, but islamist rule wasn't in the White House brochure, was it?
Change needs to come from the Arab societies themselves, and not by pulling the carpet from underneath current leaders when no political structure capable of seeing through a peaceful transition.
Hr, I'm extremely confused as to what you feel the Americans could and should have done wrt to Egypt.
Mubarak's police forces killed 900 protesters in 18 days. This is all without the powerful egyptian army getting involved and was not enough to stop the revolution.
Assad's forces ie the actual army have killed 15000 or so in 16 months. This is something you're obviously rightly distressed about and you make every effort on this board to show your disgust at what is happening and the inaction of the west.
Then with the same breath, you denounce Obama for 'abandoning ' Mubarak, as if it was Obama who told Mubarak to leave or as if those millions of egyptians who protested cared an iota what Obama thought. The Arabs simply don't change and the west are silly for thinking otherwise.
So I'm struggling here. The only way I could have seen an end to the egyptian revolution was a direct order from Obama to the egyptian army to shoot and massacre thousands. Which would seem to be at odds with your opinions on Syria.
Unless you're seeing another way for Obama not to 'abandon' Mubarak?
There's some excellent revisionism going on right now regarding these revolutions. Now, they were pushed or 'allowed' by the us.
Mubarak's police forces killed 900 protesters in 18 days. This is all without the powerful egyptian army getting involved and was not enough to stop the revolution.
Assad's forces ie the actual army have killed 15000 or so in 16 months. This is something you're obviously rightly distressed about and you make every effort on this board to show your disgust at what is happening and the inaction of the west.
Then with the same breath, you denounce Obama for 'abandoning ' Mubarak, as if it was Obama who told Mubarak to leave or as if those millions of egyptians who protested cared an iota what Obama thought. The Arabs simply don't change and the west are silly for thinking otherwise.
So I'm struggling here. The only way I could have seen an end to the egyptian revolution was a direct order from Obama to the egyptian army to shoot and massacre thousands. Which would seem to be at odds with your opinions on Syria.
Unless you're seeing another way for Obama not to 'abandon' Mubarak?
There's some excellent revisionism going on right now regarding these revolutions. Now, they were pushed or 'allowed' by the us.
And change has come from the Arab societies. The first two revolutions were not pushed or supported by the us and the protesters couldn't care less what Obama thinks and says, either now or back in his 2008 speech.
You don't become a fully-fledged democracy overnight, and if the US best interests (and those of any other free society) were in the hands of a wiser person he could have offered the Egyptians hope by trying to squeeze political concessions from Mubarak rather than pushing him out of office- not for the love of Mubarak but for the prospects of a smoother transition to a more advanced political scenario. With no organised opposition rather than the MB it was every bit as handing them the country despite what others have claimed earlier in this thread.
BTW, the situation in Egypt wasn't anything like Syria at ANY stage of the uprising depsite the unnecessary brutality of the security forces.
Many of the original protesters will lose more than anyone else for the political change. We were told it was a "facebook revolution" remember?
Lybia is a mess, Tunisia is in ther hands of an Islamist party and now Egypt too. Overall, they're right in saying that the Arab spring has turned to an Islamist winter.
If by trying to 'change Lebanon politically by force' you mean invading the country, killing thousands of people and destroying the country's infrastructure then its hardly surprise he failed no?
The White House was in a tough place regarding the Arab spring, particularly with dictators with which they had a cosy relationship with. Unfortunately for them Mubarak was one of them - sure they would have preferred that he had stayed in power and that the revolution had failed miserably, but the Egyptian people thought otherwise meaning that the US had no choice but to back the democratic movement when Mubarak was on the verge of falling, saving face and all that.
And thats precisely what they've been doing. Tunisia and Egypt have got it right so far - they've rightly realised that if their countries were ever going to change for the good then they should rid them of the remnants which they have associated decades of oppression and poverty with. In other words they had to get rid of Ben Ali and Mubarak and start from a blank democratic slate, which is precisely what they've done. Sure it hasn't been easy, nor have we had the most smoothest of transitions in those countries, but these things don't happen overnight and its up to the Egyptians and Tunisians to ensure they eventually steer things towards the right path.
What you're suggesting with the white house putting pressure on those dictators to apply reforms is naive at best since these reforms would never lead to eventual democracy. The US and her allies do not want the Middle East to be democratic since the vast majority of Middle Easterns hold a negative view towards the US's foreign policy, and see it as more of a threat than say the Iranians -that obviously doesn't bode well. Not to mention that the most radical 'reforms' that we can expect to come about from US pressure are the pathetic token ones like those introduced in Saudi Arabia, giving some people a half vote to elect parliamentarians who have no powers whatsoever - i.e. purely symbolic with no substance whatsoever just to shut the masses up.
I was referring to thinking Bashir J'mayel would last a lot longer than the two weeks he did.
Come on RK, we were led to believe this was a "facebook revolution"/democratic movement, but what do these MB mob have to do with democracy?
I hope for their sake they get a second shot at democratic elections.
I don't mind Arab democracies at all, and I doubt most Israelis do as long as these don't result in armed conflicts with Israel. Obviously there's a feeling of "better the devil you know", but as long as binational agreements are kept in full I'm all for political change in this backward neighbourhood.
I never said that you do. Which is why claims of an Islamist winter or the failure of the Arab spring is ridiculous. Democracy is a process, a long one, not a destination.
How did the Americans push Mubarak out of office? Surely that was the millions of egyptians who protested?
Handing them the country? Within 6 months, support for the brotherhood dropped from 48% of a 56% or so turnout to 25% of a 49% turnout. Egyptians are not as stupid as they're portrayed.
Surprisingly enough, the reason there is no other opposition is because of Mubarak and sadat. And what real leverage did the us have? Parliamentary elections in 05,then the most rigged elections ever in 2010. What did the us do? Nothing, the military aid kept on rolling in. As long as Mubarak left Israel alone, imprisoned gaza and shared the us view on Iran, he could do basically as he liked. And he knew it.
Egyptians and Arabs are sick of the us supporting their dictators, at the expense of their lives and dignity. Mubarak offered concessions during those 18 days. I ll initiate reforms. I ll elect a vice president. I won't stand again. I ll put in a new pm. Enough was enough. Nothing that Mubarak or Obama could have said would have made a difference. That man has ruined millions of lives.
Egypt's problem now is that they removed the head of the monster but the body is still very much alive and kicking.
Actually, the Syrian protests started out peacefully. My point was that nothing other than brute military force may have quashed the revolution in Egypt. That would have been the only way that Obama wokdld have stood by his buddy. The police alone killed almost 1000. I dread to think what the army could have done. You know, because we have to make sure we don't abandon our Arab dictators.
Many of these original protesters know the insides of Mubarak's prisons and torture chambers well.
We were told it was a Facebook revolution because some people in the west seem eager to attach their label and achievements to anything. I've had people tell me that the Arab spring came about as a result of the Iraq war, thus vindicating it. Fb and twitter had a role but millions of egyptians don't have either of these and they still protested.
This 'Islamist winter' is called democracy. It is what people voted for.
As I've outlined already, some people are in fantasy land when it comes to the MB. They seem to think they ll be building a new Saudi within the next couple of years, completely oblivious to the actual situation on the ground. Which is a powerful army which has always tortured and imprisoned the MB. A state apparatus which kills you via bureaucracy. A population deeply suspicious of the MB and needing jobs and food. And the gulf states terrified of this spreading. Morsi and the MB are far more likely to be gone within 2 years than they are to still be on power through non democratic means in 10.
As redkaos said, the us political establishment is not particularly interested in middle eastern democracy because they know that outside of Israel and maybe turkey, the natives do not share their interests in the region.
You just can't help it, can you? What do you mean by "leving Israel alone"? Would you expect an Egyptian president to slap Israel on the wrist? Carry out armed provocations along the borders? Isn't the antisemitic official press enough for your taste?
It wasn't that long ago that the resident Egypt experts promised that the MB will contest only about a third of the seats in parliament and will not have a candidate for presidency so forgive my scepticism here. I think the US is interested in a stable ME, and whether US tactics over the years is very popular around here or not I think ME stability is within the interests of most parties.
Antisemitic? :what: dear me, what have I said that is antisemitic?
I don't expect the egyptian president to do anything. All I stated was fact. American policy in the me is based on keeping trade routes open, availability of fossil fuels and Israel. The final point is the reason why Israel and Egypt receive so much military aid year on year.
That wasn't the resident experts, that was the MB themselves. And in case you missed it, the scaf (sorry... The 'independent judges') just cancelled the whole of the democratically elected parliament, choc a bloc with moderate and hard line Islamists. And it has done the same with their constituent assembly, is threatening to do the same again with a new one, is looking into dissolving the MB as an organisation, has threatened them with the same scenario nasser meted out to them in the 50s and one of the 19 generals has said that they ll be having completely new elections for everything after the new constitution is written.
So as with you, forgive my scepticism about all these claims of mb omnipotence or a rapid transition to a Saudi or Iran.
Stability is always in everyone's interests. Unfortunately, this 'stability' has meant absolutely dictators for the Arabs, both secular and religious, each one as brutal as the next, economic stagnation and worsening living situations.
They try to change from within their own societies, amazingly don't emerge as a liberal, western style democracy within a year and we are all falling over one another to denounce them as failures. No thanks, this will be a long, very difficult process but they're on the right path.
I did not mean to say you were...
I was referring to Egyptian press being antisemitic under Mubarak (obviously with his approval) which doesn't necessarily translate to "leaving Israel alone".I wish nothing but good luck to the Egyptians. I disagree with your sentiments here, as I see true stability a direct consequence of economic success, increasing standards of living and liberalism. No one in their right minds would be fooled into a needless war under these circumstances.