Though i strongly disagree, at least you're making your point in respectable manner. Most of the times. What is unacceptable though, your attempt to justify more than 100 dead and 4000 wounded by using junta arguments. Game being played here is clear. Since Muslims are still main factor in elections, they should be dragged down streets. Shooting at crowd, incite rebellion, crush them with your tanks and jets like Assad is doing. Reshape the demography, live happily forever and ever. Your assumption of USA and Israel might choose an Islamic government over a secular one because that's best for their interest is simply unreal.
As for those clowns; I took you seriously even though i was aware of your intentions, i have tried to reason with you. Like it or not, i offered my view and all i got from you as counter argument were petty insults and retarded emoticons. From now on, your reactions worth less than a donkey's fart as you have less understanding than an animal. You're vile enough to make fun in a situation people suffering greatly. Call me bigot, as if you're not blinded by hate of religious, not able to respond without stupid jokes and insults, you are not even aware of it. Education takes ignorance away but you will remain as whelp if you born and raised that way.
Defending a coup: the American way
In his piece “Defending the Coup,” conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks does the opposite. “Islamists might be determined enough to run effective opposition movements and committed enough to provide street-level social services,” writes Brooks, “But they lack the mental equipment to govern. Once in office, they are always going to centralize power and undermine the democracy that elevated them.”
Before you ask who these mentally deficient Islamists are, Brooks lists them and highlights their unique culture: “It has become clear -- in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere -- that radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government. Many have absolutist, apocalyptic mind-sets. They have a strange fascination with a culture of death.”
No, it's not a conspiracy theory -- because that only happens among the mentally unequipped in the Global South -- this is well-respected journalism. They are everywhere, looting our “pure democracy” like rats, so dedicated to dying instantly. As you read about these freaks, I bet you remember the motto (quoted from Marx) in Edward Said's “Orientalism”: “They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented.” And yet, don't get excited, fellow Americans (especially those working in the military-industrial complex)!
Here is Brooks' caveat: “In reality, the U.S. has no ability to influence political events in Egypt in any important way. The only real leverage point is at the level of ideas.”
Yes, we are thankful to Mr. Brooks for his brilliant ideas, very well reflected in the aforementioned article. It wasn't so long ago, however, that conservative circles were raising a red flag over the issue and reporting on the US governments' active reticence. Philip Giraldi's March 2013 essay in The American Conservative, “Gulf States Buy Egyptian Riots,” may be the best example. Giraldi, a former CIA officer, noted the following long before the Egyptian coup: “So who is behind the unrest? The money fueling the confrontation comes from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, none of which are enamored of the Muslim Brotherhood or Morsi. They fear that the untidy democracy, such as it is, in Egypt and elsewhere amid the Arab Spring could spill over to their states, and they desire a return to something like the military-backed regime of Mubarak, which was politically reliable and dedicated to suppressing political extremism and even dissent in all forms. A government of national unity, backed by the army, that would give lip service to democratic institutions would be just fine.”
And how about our weak government, having brilliant ideas for mentally ill freaks but no influence at all? Well, here you go: “There is some sentiment on the US National Security Council and in the White House favoring a return to something like the Mubarak rule in Egypt, if that could be arranged 'democratically,' without sparking a wider conflagration.”
Now, Egypt is on the brink of a civil war, plunged further into chaos day by day.
Democratically arranged coup? Supporting Mubarak-type dictators through Gulf states' money? And, after all, brilliant ideas that defend the intervention, pouring from “objective” columnists?
Defending democracy is hard. It entails not only mental health but also a sincere heart.
http://todayszaman.com/blog-322027-defending-a-coup-the-american-way.html
Ikhwan after coup: ballot or bullet?
The Muslim Brotherhood (or Ikhwan), which has made major political gains in Egypt since the Arab Spring, is facing the most serious crackdown in its decades-long history after the army ousted the country's first democratically elected president in early July.
After the army forcefully removed Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi from power, senior members of the country's oldest and largest Islamist organization were detained and its headquarters were ransacked and burned.
Members of Ikhwan, which has for many decades grown underground, had gained top positions soon after the Arab revolution.
It was the Arab Spring -- which occurred unexpectedly in the Arab world starting at the end of 2010 and created a domino effect, resulting in the fall of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya -- that brought Morsi to power.
In an effort to keep the movement at bay, Ikhwan was cracked down on hard during the eras of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar El Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, who was overthrown in 2011 following the uprisings in Egypt, which is the birthplace of the movement.
During its history the group made several attempts to get involved in politics, however all these attempts failed and the group continued to grow underground.
Now the movement faces the risk of becoming radicalized as it has rejected being included in the political process that is being steered by the military junta.
Radicalization of the movement would be the worst scenario for the Arab country. Ikhwan should fight via the ballot box rather than taking up arms.
A few days ago, I had an interesting conversation with a senior Egyptian diplomat, to whom I asked: “Isn't the possibility of the radicalization of Ikhwan not a concern for you all?” The answer was terrifying. He said, “I would prefer Ikhwan to become radicalized then to allow Egypt to become like Iran.” He further added that “whatever the price is, we are ready to pay!”
In case Ikhwan radicalizes, Egypt, like Syria, would turn into a fertile ground for jihadist groups and al-Qaeda, which do not hesitate to transform countries into a proxy battlefield.
Yes, it is not a secret that the Muslim Brotherhood received a serious blow with the coup and needless to say that the movement's mistakes had played an important role in paving the way for the coup.
Last year, when I had interviews with the senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo, what I observed was that these guys lacked a concrete roadmap for the future. However, to be honest, these guys were also not given much time to create such a roadmap. Indeed, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood example shows us that being in opposition is very different than being in power.
However, now that coup has happened, the only thing left for the Muslim Brotherhood to do is to be involved in the new political process rather than boycotting it. Ballot rather than bullets should speak in Egypt! Here, the responsibility does not only fall on the shoulders of Ikhwan but also of opposition and the new coup regime, which should avoid pushing Ikhwan out of the political game.
Indeed, the Middle East is the region of conspiracies and what I stated is the worst scenario for Egypt. I hope I will turn out to be in the wrong.
http://todayszaman.com/blog-321899-ikhwan-after-coup-ballot-or-bullet.html
How to depose an unpopular leader -- and how unpopular was he?
Arguments continue to flood political corridors, academic circles and social networks blindly insisting that what is unfolding in Egypt is not a coup.
The argument is that President Mohammed Morsi had lost everyone's support, and there was no way to get rid of him other than inviting a military coup. President Morsi certainly did not enjoy universal approval, but, in addition to all arguments refuting the "democracy through coup" delusion, the claim that a clear majority were against him is questionable. A PEW Poll (May 2013) showed views of Egyptians towards Morsi were: 53 percent favorable, 43 percent unfavorable. That is considerably higher than President Barack Obama and all EU leaders' approval ratings. Interestingly, his approval ratings were higher than all opposition leaders, his disapproval ratings lower than theirs.
Similarly for the demonized Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the argument claims that the coup was a response to an overwhelming popular rejection of the MB (and for some a conviction that they had to be pushed out of politics -- if not from existence altogether -- for Egypt's sake, as expressed in some disturbing chants celebrating their downfall such as "tonight, tonight, Ikhwaan no longer tonight!"). However, the same poll shows that views of the MB were 63 percent favorable, 36 percent unfavorable. That is indeed lower than the 75 percent who had favorable views of the MB in 2011, but for a movement in power, particularly after a revolution, the drop is certainly not surprising. Their experience in power has certainly had good and bad judgments. My aim, in highlighting these statistics is not to claim that President Morsi and the MB are faultless; we all know that is untrue. But their mistakes are political misjudgments, not crimes for which they should be excluded and persecuted, and should be addressed at the ballot box. Those who use "unpopularity" to justify the abortion of the democratic process and the invitation of a military coup should be worried in case that argument is used against them in the future. That applies to the opposition National Salvation Front (NSF) leaders whose approval ratings, according to the same survey, were not stellar, and, notably, below the man they wished to depose by coup (47 percent had unfavorable views of Hamdeen Sabbahi and 54 percent had unfavorable views of Mohamed Elbaradei) while we know it is certainly easier to be popular in opposition than it is in power.
Many academics and politicians who are not sympathetic to the MB, but are committed to democratic principles, had repeatedly argued that the experience of Islamists in power would lead to the erosion of their popularity, creating a better balance in the political scene. That hypothesis was sadly left untested by the suspension of the natural political process to test the MB's popularity in the next elections. This does not only deprive academics and observers from testing their theories, but more dangerously deprives Egyptians of the hard-won chance to exercise their right of holding their elected leaders accountable through the ballot box. This has dealt a fatal blow to belief in democratic means as the right means for expressing resentment and for political change. The grave consequences are already before our eyes, and I sincerely pray -- against all odds and all historical precedents -- that the elected president and constitutional order are restored and the democratic process is urgently resumed to avoid further disastrous consequences for Egypt.
http://todayszaman.com/blog-320315-how-to-depose-an-unpopular-leader-and-how-unpopular-was-he.html