Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The riots in Egypt are threatening the spark of a civil war, and the divide is more complicated than pro/anti Islamists. The military is less ideologically radical than the Muslim Brotherhood, yet the Muslim Brotherhood (and Morsi) were elected democratically. Would it be right for Egypt to return to Morsi's rule and follow democracy, or continue with military rule, and push Islamists out of power?

Unfortunately, Morsi's return would not mean a return of his social and foreign policies of 2012-13. Morsi had his faults, to be sure, and I would not want him running any office here in the US. The Muslim Brotherhood has a lot of fishy connections and associations.

But Morsi, for all his faults, was as moderate as you could be in Egypt. He publicly claimed that the FJP was separate from the Muslim Brotherhood, and even clashed with them, battling the radical elements in the organization. He didn't declare war on Israel, didn't invoke Sharia law, and didn't declaw the military (as was done in Iran in 1980). In fact, he made a bargain with them where their leadership would remain mostly intact and powerful (as well as given amnesty for anything done under Mubarak) in exchange for more governmental powers and cooperation as President. Essentially, he was calling for civilian control of the government. He wasn't a spectacular leader, but as far as Islamists go, he was the most moderate, and was cordial to the US and the West.

So should Morsi return to power? Would restoring him bring back his old agenda? Should we criticize the Egyptian military for the coup? The military attempted to weaken radical Islamist efforts by ousting Morsi; unfortunately this gave the radicals new life.

So what do the pro-Morsi rioters want? They want Morsi's return, but I doubt they want the same Morsi who steered clear of overt radicalism. That's because the rhetoric behind the Islamist camp is different now than it was in the wake of Mubarak's ouster. During and after Mubarak's ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood sent a memo to its members in Tahrir Square reminding them to display Egyptian flags, and avoid anything overtly Islamist. The Morsi brought to power by the election did not try to castrate the military (and even if he was, he wasted many, many opportunities) and avoided overt Islamization of Egypt.

Now, the rhetoric is different, and that's clearly shown by the pogroms done by the Muslim Brotherhood against Coptic Christian churches. Over 50 have been burnt in the ensuing riots, and the Christian community in Egypt is panicking. The rhetoric this time is overtly Islamist, with Muslim Brotherhood rioters also screaming against the military's cooperation with Israel against terrorism in Gaza. Rather than an Egyptian tone, the rhetoric is Islamist, and radically so.

So the return of Morsi wouldn't really be the return of Morsi. If Morsi returns to power the radical Salafis will be calling the shots, and he would either have to go along with their plans, or he would be ditched for someone more radical.

The US and the West has to straddle a difficult position when dealing with reactions to the crisis unfolding. When he was in power, the US realized they had to work with Morsi and tried to do so. Now that the democratically-elected leader is ousted, it's politically correct to criticize the military and demand that an elected leader be reinstated. The question is, will this be the same Morsi that was ousted a month ago?

Well there are a lot of things to address here. First off it's very unlikely there would be a full blown civil war in Egypt. If it really came to that point we'd be looking at something more akin to an Iraq style insurgency (suicide bombers/car bombs, that sort of thing), not years of block to block street fights all throughout the country like in Syria. This means Egypt will be a new hot spot for terrorism, which means local Jihadism will become the new norm for a while. However, I think conflict will come in packets as opposed to a large force of freedom fighters or anything of the sort. The Egyptian military is massive: the 10th largest military in the world. Egypt's military is 10 times the size of the American led occupation force of Iraq. There's also the fact that the military owns a huge chunk of the economy -- I've seen figures that put it at 40% (with a minimum of 15%). That, coupled with the steady flow of US aid (read: military hardware and cash for even more military hardware) and the fact that they have the support of even the secular liberals in the country, I have little doubt that Sisi would lose much public support if he ordered wide scale massacres of MB supporters (keep in mind that the crackdown has a death toll higher than Tienanmen square. I've even heard more people died in armed conflict in Egypt on the 14th than in Syria that day). Egypt has defaulted back to a military dictatorship and a lot of Egyptians seem to be okay with that. In that sense, I think it's fair to say the military is just as, if not more so ideologically radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

At this point I think the question of whether or not Morsi should be allowed back into office is irrelevant. It's impossible; the Muslim Brotherhood has been pushed underground again if not destroyed entirely. The military is ultimately the final arbiter and they don't even attempt to hide that fact. There is no democracy in Egypt. The military will set up elections within the next year or so but in light of these recent events you have to ask yourself if it even matters. Sisi has declared loudly and explicitly to the Egyptian people that if the military does not like who is elected they will just throw them out. With all the faults of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, that does not warrant political persecution, militant subversion and an extreme violation of basic human rights. Morsi supporters will continue to take to the streets because they largely don't have anywhere else to go -- a majority of Morsi supporters are poor in an already poor country. There isn't a way back for them, especially since this battle has become so intertwined over religion. This should be very concerning, as religious identity is a huge part of being in the Brotherhood. They really don't have any cards to play with here other than to fight against an impossibly powerful opponent. Their identity is dead if they just lay down without a fight anyway, so there's little point in their eyes.

There's a much larger story here when you look at the full picture. The military managed to kill off not only political Islam, but also secular liberalism. The "progressives" have completely turned their back on liberalism and fully support insane propaganda supporting the military. Gulf states like the UAE are publicly endorsing the violence. Even Baradei, the voice for the upper middle class pro-democracy/anti-military youth has proven himself to be an empty shell. This was a historic massacre which has the support of most of the country. And, on top of that, everyone knows the military would not have done this if the US would put a stop to it. We will continue to send them aid (which "unofficially" funds the persecution of democracy) while Kerry says vague condemnations of violence but refuses to call out any particular group for their role. A fascist dictatorship is the best thing for the US in Egypt: they're very stable. Sisi has a free pass to do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't threaten Israel or the Suez. Things will get worse before they get better.

And for the record, I'm by no means a Morsi supporter, but civil society cannot exist in the face of unwarranted open violence.

Morsi screwed up, plain and simple. He could have turned Egypt into an Islamic Theocracy had he played his cards right, problem is, you don't sneak contraband into a prison by wearing it on your head, pointing to it, and yelling , "Look what I got!"

All he had to do was play it cool, take it easy, slowly enact changes through "compromise" Meet your opponents in the "middle" (middle being towards your end of the scale) until you get where you want to be. While doing this, garner the support of the population at large and more or less sucker them into WANTING the change that would basically make them your servants.

but no, he decided he wanted to move too quickly, put the contraband on his head, point at it and yell, "Look what I got! I DARE you to try and take it!"

so the military took him down. The military's hands would effectively be bound has Morsi first garnered the support of the majority before decided that he was above the law.

At 8/17/13 10:59 PM, Korriken wrote: He could have turned Egypt into an Islamic Theocracy

You don't know what you're talking about.

people are stupid creatures about as stable as sodium metal in a swimming pool.

Wait a minute, before the military ousted him people were condemning him for trying to rewrite the Constitution so that it wasn't a Democracy and now people are complaining that he's been removed? Christ make up your minds already.

At 8/18/13 01:28 AM, Warforger wrote: Wait a minute, before the military ousted him people were condemning him for trying to rewrite the Constitution so that it wasn't a Democracy and now people are complaining that he's been removed? Christ make up your minds already.

While Morsi took terrible autocratic steps, there was still the possibility of removing him using democratic methods like, y'know, an election. In addition, a coup always entails giving a tremendous amount of power to one entity (the military), which is generally the last thing you want if you're concerned about that sort of thing. Context and subtext are very real things and it is certainly possible to oppose Morsi and not want a military dictatorship forcibly taking control of the country and killing literally hundreds of protesters en mass.

At 8/17/13 11:29 PM, Feoric wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about.

He was the head of the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The Brotherhood itself describes the "principles of the Muslim Brotherhood" as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Shari`ah as "the basis controlling the affairs of state and society;""

so yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. Do you really think a group that has for the last century has been trying to implement sharia law in Egypt is going to allow a leader that is against it?

At 8/18/13 01:46 AM, Feoric wrote:

While Morsi took terrible autocratic steps, there was still the possibility of removing him using democratic methods like, y'know, an election.

At the rate he was going, it would be a lot like trying to remove Hugo Chavez (before he died), Robert Mugabe, or Vladimir Putin (or Dmitri Medvedev) from office. nice in theory, but in reality, practically impossible. Egyptians should consider themselves lucky they have a military that is capable and willing to remove corrupt leaders when necessary. While the elections would have happened, you can bet your life that the elections would have been rife with fraud at the hands of the MB and its supporters in order to maintain power. Autocrats don't take chances on fair and free elections.

Can anyone tell me why the Obama administration didn't do everything in its power to prevent this from happening or at least punishing the Egyptian military for its brutal oppression of the Morsi supporters? What does this administration stand to gain by continuing in this course of action?

At 8/18/13 12:29 PM, Light wrote: What does this administration stand to gain by continuing in this course of action?

The gain is the avoidance of the massive loss that would undoubtedly occur had the administration got involved in anything more than words.

At 8/18/13 03:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/18/13 12:29 PM, Light wrote: What does this administration stand to gain by continuing in this course of action?

The gain is the avoidance of the massive loss that would undoubtedly occur had the administration got involved in anything more than words.

I uh, I don't like the sound of that.

At 8/18/13 12:29 PM, Light wrote: What does this administration stand to gain by continuing in this course of action?

Well, if the Egyptian army succeeds in quelling the brotherhood - the same way the Algerian military succeeded in suppressing a popular Islamist movement that was about to seize power though elections in the 90s - then the US has an enemy controlling the Suez canal and the Sinai, which borders Israel and Gaza. Seriously, if the Egyptians respond to US sanctions by shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels then all ships that are bound for the Persian Gulf have to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. You have to weigh that off agaisnt what you would gain with a bet, which isn't going to be much. (remember how grateful the Taliban were for US aid for the Mujahideen against the Soviets?)

Besides, the US would piss off the Egyptian military's allies, namely Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait - all of them being important US allies in the region. All in all, the US might lose even more influence than in the current situation in which it's just hedging its bets.

At 8/18/13 06:17 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/17/13 11:29 PM, Feoric wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about.

He was the head of the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The Brotherhood itself describes the "principles of the Muslim Brotherhood" as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Shari`ah as "the basis controlling the affairs of state and society;""

so yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. Do you really think a group that has for the last century has been trying to implement sharia law in Egypt is going to allow a leader that is against it?

No, actually, you don't. The Muslim Brotherhood has always been an underground and weird cultish opposition group. The secularists, the establishment (which would be figures from Mubarak's 30 year reign) and the military did not like the Brotherhood. They never had the backing of the people and the power structures in Egypt. They've actually been systematically suppressed for nearly 60 years in Egypt. After Mubarak fell, there was never a concerted effort to uproot his cronies from the government. Mubarak was just the figurehead, the people that actually made Egypt run never left actually Egypt. And guess what? They all fucking hated the Muslim Brotherhood. They all fucking hated the idea of political Islam. The old Egyptian establishment before the revolution had more than half a century to entrench itself in every aspect of life, not just in the bureaucracy but in the economy, the military, the police, in commerce and in every level of industry. Please, I'm begging you, how on earth would the Muslim Brotherhood, a group hated by both the system and the people from day one, have turned Egypt into an "Islamic theocracy?" There is no way the MB would have been able to gut a system that big without anyone noticing. Erdogan could barely do it and it took him nearly 10 years in a much more liberal country (keep in mind this is Turkey we're talking about). Mubarak may not be the official leader of Egypt anymore but he still effectively runs the country in spirit because the people he stacked the system with never left, and the MB is the antithesis of that system still in place. You just witnessed the military murder about 1000 innocent protesters the past few days and you really think they would have just allowed Morsi to take over the country like that?

At the rate he was going, it would be a lot like trying to remove Hugo Chavez (before he died), Robert Mugabe, or Vladimir Putin (or Dmitri Medvedev) from office. nice in theory, but in reality, practically impossible. Egyptians should consider themselves lucky they have a military that is capable and willing to remove corrupt leaders when necessary. While the elections would have happened, you can bet your life that the elections would have been rife with fraud at the hands of the MB and its supporters in order to maintain power. Autocrats don't take chances on fair and free elections.

Yes, the Egyptian people are so lucky to have their own military indiscriminately fire on protesters. I too would use the word lucky to describe a country that has a military which, after taking over via a coup, started shooting at their own people, killing and injuring thousands. Please describe to me the steps and processes the MB would take to fraudulently take back power, which they never had in the first place, in spite of the fact that every single person other than the MB is opposed to them?

At 8/18/13 12:29 PM, Light wrote: Can anyone tell me why the Obama administration didn't do everything in its power to prevent this from happening or at least punishing the Egyptian military for its brutal oppression of the Morsi supporters?

Keep in the administration doesn't have that much power. Sure, they can end that nice little aid package they have going for them, but Russia would be more than happy to fill that void if that ever happened to the best of their ability, something is better than nothing. We tried to convince the military not to do this but Sisi was right in his assessment that pretty much nothing was going in change as far his relationship with the United States is concerned.

What does this administration stand to gain by continuing in this course of action?

The Camp David Accords continue as scheduled.

Lapis, Camarohusky, and Feoric, thanks for the responses. All were very informative.

At 8/18/13 03:37 PM, lapis wrote: Well, if the Egyptian army succeeds in quelling the brotherhood - the same way the Algerian military succeeded in suppressing a popular Islamist movement that was about to seize power though elections in the 90s - then the US has an enemy controlling the Suez canal and the Sinai, which borders Israel and Gaza. Seriously, if the Egyptians respond to US sanctions by shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels then all ships that are bound for the Persian Gulf have to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. You have to weigh that off agaisnt what you would gain with a bet, which isn't going to be much. (remember how grateful the Taliban were for US aid for the Mujahideen against the Soviets?)

The international community would never allow the Suez to be shut down under any circumstances. There would be an intervention at that point, not just from the US.

At 8/18/13 04:39 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/18/13 03:37 PM, lapis wrote: Well, if the Egyptian army succeeds in quelling the brotherhood - the same way the Algerian military succeeded in suppressing a popular Islamist movement that was about to seize power though elections in the 90s - then the US has an enemy controlling the Suez canal and the Sinai, which borders Israel and Gaza. Seriously, if the Egyptians respond to US sanctions by shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels then all ships that are bound for the Persian Gulf have to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. You have to weigh that off agaisnt what you would gain with a bet, which isn't going to be much. (remember how grateful the Taliban were for US aid for the Mujahideen against the Soviets?)

The international community would never allow the Suez to be shut down under any circumstances. There would be an intervention at that point, not just from the US.

By "shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels" I meant that the Egyptians would threaten to intercept all US military ships that enter the canal, and to take them under fire using land-based missiles or artillery or aircraft should the US vessels resist being intercepted. Other nations need not care about that.

At 8/18/13 05:08 PM, lapis wrote: By "shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels" I meant that the Egyptians would threaten to intercept all US military ships that enter the canal, and to take them under fire using land-based missiles or artillery or aircraft should the US vessels resist being intercepted. Other nations need not care about that.

This would never happen. The Egyptian military would not allow this to happen and neither would the US or anyone else. There are more than enough Egyptian soldiers to secure the canal if there were ever any credible threat to it. Yes, other nations absolutely would care if US ships were targeted in the canal, you think this wouldn't disrupt the billions of dollars worth of trade that passes through there everyday? Not only that, this would be a violation of an international treaty which Egypt and the international community is bound to.

At 8/18/13 04:17 PM, Feoric wrote:

The old Egyptian establishment before the revolution had more than half a century to entrench itself in every aspect of life, not just in the bureaucracy but in the economy, the military, the police, in commerce and in every level of industry. Please, I'm begging you, how on earth would the Muslim Brotherhood, a group hated by both the system and the people from day one, have turned Egypt into an "Islamic theocracy?"

I never said they did. I said they COULD have, IF they played their cards right (they did not).

You just witnessed the military murder about 1000 innocent protesters the past few days and you really think they would have just allowed Morsi to take over the country like that?

Given that the MB became very much unpopular in short time due to Morsi's power grabs, no. However, had they worked their way into the system and gained the support of the masses, the military's hands would effectively be tied.

Yes, the Egyptian people are so lucky to have their own military indiscriminately fire on protesters.

Yeah so lucky that the security personnel put up with having rocks and molotovs thrown at them when they tried to handle things the peaceful way. Sometimes, you don't have much choice but to take the unpopular path forward.

Please describe to me the steps and processes the MB would take to fraudulently take back power, which they never had in the first place, in spite of the fact that every single person other than the MB is opposed to them?

You mean that party that NO ONE supported that managed to get elected anyway, and had camps full of nonexistent people throwing rocks and petrol bombs at security personnel as they tried to break up the camps? Yeah, your logic reeks of bullshit.

As I said, had they played their cards right and remained in power for long enough, they could have easily gained the support of the masses by simply backing off from the "We want Sharia law!" and pretended to be secular-ish and worked towards fixing the economy, among other things. As they gained popularity and won a 2nd election, they could begin SLOWLY subverting the system and corrupting it. a little bit here and a little bit there, and before you know it, you have the changes you want, and there's not much that can be done about it.

Instead they tried to skip straight to "we own Egypt" and now all hell breaks loose because his supporters are dumb enough to go toe to toe with the military and not surrender, go home, and support an Islamic Fundamentalist group in the next election.

At 8/18/13 05:26 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/18/13 05:08 PM, lapis wrote: By "shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels" I meant that the Egyptians would threaten to intercept all US military ships that enter the canal, and to take them under fire using land-based missiles or artillery or aircraft should the US vessels resist being intercepted. Other nations need not care about that.

This would never happen. The Egyptian military would not allow this to happen and neither would the US or anyone else. There are more than enough Egyptian soldiers to secure the canal if there were ever any credible threat to it. Yes, other nations absolutely would care if US ships were targeted in the canal, you think this wouldn't disrupt the billions of dollars worth of trade that passes through there everyday? Not only that, this would be a violation of an international treaty which Egypt and the international community is bound to.

We're on two different wavelengths. I'm talking about the Egyptian military shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels in response to US sanctions imposed upon it as a response to the bloodshed committed by the Egyptian military government. The Egyptian military would allow this to happen because they would be the ones doing it, there would be no trade lost because the US Navy doesn't typically transport merchandise and if the US imposes sanctions upon the Egyptian military government that would seriously threaten its existence then they may very well be prepared to waive or infringe upon the treaty.

At 8/19/13 01:38 AM, Korriken wrote: I never said they did. I said they COULD have, IF they played their cards right (they did not).

No, they could not have. Don't backtrack. The Morsi government was undermined from the very beginning. Your ignorance of Egyptian politics is stunning yet not surprising. The Muslim Brotherhood had absolutely no plan to implement Sharia Law and you yourself have zero evidence that they were planning on it other than conspiracy theories published by The Blaze et al. The MB was stuck on focusing on intra-party affairs as opposed to focusing on Egypt. Morsi had absolutely no place to be in any sort of position of power and the protests were absolutely justified, but this does not excuse the actions carried out by the military and the cold blooded murder of protesters. You have yet to demonstrate how Morsi/the MB could have somehow duped the old guard in spite of the fact that they were just waiting for the perfect opportunity to overthrow them.

Given that the MB became very much unpopular in short time due to Morsi's power grabs, no. However, had they worked their way into the system and gained the support of the masses, the military's hands would effectively be tied.

I don't know how it's possible to say this at this point. The MB was unpopular 60 years before this happened. The military has always been the leader of Egypt. They control the country and the economy. They do not even attempt to mask this fact. They just ousted a democratically elected government that they always openly hated for decades yet you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Morsi to fit your story even though it's against literally all the facts coming out of Egypt right now. They never stood a chance. There was zero chance the Brotherhood could have ingratiated themselves within the establishment. The MB never had the support of "the people." They had the support of the Muslim Brotherhood and nobody else. Let me break down the elections for you:

Morsi: 24%
Shafik: 23% (connected Mubarak crony)
Sabahi: 20% {left wing activist, tortured under the Mubarak regime)
al-Fotouh: (ex-MB member, lots of drama)

The reason why the MB won the election is simple yet complicated. They are the ones that have the most sophisticated and organized political apparatus. It's very hierarchical, organized and authoritarian. No one else has those qualities. I don't know exactly why that is, but I suspect it's a direct result of survival skills from being systematically oppressed for 6 decades or so.

Yeah so lucky that the security personnel put up with having rocks and molotovs thrown at them when they tried to handle things the peaceful way. Sometimes, you don't have much choice but to take the unpopular path forward.

Bullshit. You're just happy that there is a fascist military dictatorship to overthrow and kill people you don't agree with. Let's not even pretend you give a shit about what is in the best interest for the Egyptian people.

You mean that party that NO ONE supported that managed to get elected anyway, and had camps full of nonexistent people throwing rocks and petrol bombs at security personnel as they tried to break up the camps? Yeah, your logic reeks of bullshit.

Yeah okay. Let's all appreciate the irony of a freedom loving American supporting a fascist military dictatorship which just murdered over 1000 innocent protesters in cold blood, none of which victims were checked for prior crimes or party ID.

As I said, had they played their cards right and remained in power for long enough, they could have easily gained the support of the masses by simply backing off from the "We want Sharia law!" and pretended to be secular-ish and worked towards fixing the economy, among other things.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Every single person other than the MB is saying "yes, kill those terrorists" in response to the cold blooded crackdown on pro-Morsi protests. You have not demonstrated at all how they would magically gain the trust of the people. It's impossible to do so, because there was no way they could have.

As they gained popularity and won a 2nd election, they could begin SLOWLY subverting the system and corrupting it. a little bit here and a little bit there, and before you know it, you have the changes you want, and there's not much that can be done about it.

You're out of your mind. The anti-Morsi protests were bigger than the anti-Mubarak protests. The MB/political Islam was dead at that point. You desperately want to believe the MB was this nefarious organization when it actually had no power and zero chance of installing a 4th caliphate or whatever the fuck you wackos believe. There was absolutely no chance of them winning a second election.

Instead they tried to skip straight to "we own Egypt" and now all hell breaks loose because his supporters are dumb enough to go toe to toe with the military and not surrender, go home, and support an Islamic Fundamentalist group in the next election.

Man you've bought right into the propaganda. Who actually owns Egypt? Who banned newspapers, arrested political opponents, canceled the democratic process and committed mass murder in the middle of the streets? The Muslim Brotherhood or the military?

At 8/19/13 03:22 AM, Feoric wrote:

No, they could not have. Don't backtrack.

I never backtracked. reread my first post.

The Muslim Brotherhood had absolutely no plan to implement Sharia Law.

Not in the beginning anyway. going straight to sharia law would have been a disaster and would have ended his presidency even faster.

and the protests were absolutely justified, but this does not excuse the actions carried out by the military and the cold blooded murder of protesters.

Maybe not, thing that bothers me is the lack of information on the whole scenario other than "Army shooting protestors" Surely some event sparked all of this and not just the head of the army saying, "Kill them for opposing us."

You have yet to demonstrate how Morsi/the MB could have somehow duped the old guard in spite of the fact that they were just waiting for the perfect opportunity to overthrow them.

They were waiting for the perfect opportunity, yes. However, they would be unable to if Morsi had the support of the people. The Egyptian military would be unable to sustain itself without the Egyptian people.

Given that the MB became very much unpopular in short time due to Morsi's power grabs, no. However, had they worked their way into the system and gained the support of the masses, the military's hands would effectively be tied.

I don't know how it's possible to say this at this point. The MB was unpopular 60 years before this happened.

Blacks were once held in slavery, and now look who is in the White House. Things can change. Morsi wasn't all that popular, this is true. However, by making the right moves the MB could have changed that.

The military has always been the leader of Egypt. They control the country and the economy. They do not even attempt to mask this fact. They just ousted a democratically elected government that they always openly hated for decades yet you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Morsi to fit your story even though it's against literally all the facts coming out of Egypt right now.

Sometime I wonder if you ignore half of what I say for the sake of arguing. If the Egyptian military went in and removed a popular president, all hell would have broken loose. Morsi was probably about as popular as Bush by time Bush stepped down over the moves he and his party made.

They never stood a chance. There was zero chance the Brotherhood could have ingratiated themselves within the establishment. The MB never had the support of "the people." They had the support of the Muslim Brotherhood and nobody else. Let me break down the elections for you:

And that is precisely WHY they would have to work to gain the support of the people, in order to tie the hands of the military.

The reason why the MB won the election is simple yet complicated. They are the ones that have the most sophisticated and organized political apparatus. It's very hierarchical, organized and authoritarian. No one else has those qualities. I don't know exactly why that is, but I suspect it's a direct result of survival skills from being systematically oppressed for 6 decades or so.

Bullshit. You're just happy that there is a fascist military dictatorship to overthrow and kill people you don't agree with. Let's not even pretend you give a shit about what is in the best interest for the Egyptian people.

Can I borrow your mind reading device? I need to find out what my boss REALLY thinks about my job performance.

Yeah okay. Let's all appreciate the irony of a freedom loving American supporting a fascist military dictatorship which just murdered over 1000 innocent protesters in cold blood, none of which victims were checked for prior crimes or party ID.

Where is this freedom loving American supporting a fascist military dictatorship? I can't find this person. I mean seriously, that is some extremely acrobatic logic you have to come to the conclusion that because I said it could have ended differently and that things aren't playing out as simply as you state that I somehow support all of this.

to be perfectly frank, I have no power to change anything other there, so why should I be worried? It's going to play itself out like any other crisis.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Every single person other than the MB is saying "yes, kill those terrorists" in response to the cold blooded crackdown on pro-Morsi protests. You have not demonstrated at all how they would magically gain the trust of the people. It's impossible to do so, because there was no way they could have.

Yeah and there's no possible way to send a message overseas quickly, no way a man can fly or survive a fall from a very high altitude, or a black man could be the American President... oh wait...

You keep talking about impossible, but impossible is not a word I like to use, ever. support is something you build, it doesn't just magically happen. There's no way the MB could have gained the support of the entire population, some factions of people are mutually exclusive, such as the Coptic Christians and Islamic Fundamentalists. However, you don't need 100% support, just the majority.

You're out of your mind. The anti-Morsi protests were bigger than the anti-Mubarak protests. The MB/political Islam was dead at that point.

Yeah, a year after the election, and after Morsi's politically suicidal moves, it was the biggest protest Egypt has ever seen. However, you're trying to make it look like it happened the next day before they could do anything.

You desperately want to believe the MB was this nefarious organization when it actually had no power and zero chance of installing a 4th caliphate or whatever the fuck you wackos believe.

I already had little respect for you. Now I officially have none. congratulations.

Man you've bought right into the propaganda.

Nah, I've seen this situation play out before. you have a bunch of people fighting for political power, and someone that rules over them all. to bring down the one that rules over you, you have to pander to the people, get their trust, then use them to bring down the person who rules over you. The military wouldn't be able to handle the bulk of Egyptians turning on them. the Morsi supporters can be handled in such a way because there's a relatively small faction of hardliners who support Morsi enough to even put their women and children into harm's way for a lost cause.

At 8/19/13 03:01 AM, lapis wrote: We're on two different wavelengths. I'm talking about the Egyptian military shutting the Suez canal to US naval vessels in response to US sanctions imposed upon it as a response to the bloodshed committed by the Egyptian military government. The Egyptian military would allow this to happen because they would be the ones doing it, there would be no trade lost because the US Navy doesn't typically transport merchandise and if the US imposes sanctions upon the Egyptian military government that would seriously threaten its existence then they may very well be prepared to waive or infringe upon the treaty.

I understand that premise, I just don't see it happening that way. This is still in violation of international treaty and would cause a lot of anxiety/instability in an already unstable region. I know this is just hypothetical but in reality I really don't see us imposing sanctions. I don't think we want to mess with the balance of power between Egypt and Israel. Egypt's economy is in a stay of disarray and pretty much unfixable at this point, I'm not sure what good sanctions would do. However, if we go as far as cutting our military aid package (which is the most likely course of action) then it would be a good time to see if Obama is going ahead with the whole 'pivot to Asia' plan and get preferential access through the Straits of Malacca instead of the Suez.

At 8/19/13 11:41 AM, Korriken wrote: Not in the beginning anyway. going straight to sharia law would have been a disaster and would have ended his presidency even faster.

Keep in mind your original statement: "Morsi screwed up, plain and simple. He could have turned Egypt into an Islamic Theocracy had he played his cards right..." You don't have anything to back this assertion up other than "well he was going to, I swear!"

Maybe not, thing that bothers me is the lack of information on the whole scenario other than "Army shooting protestors" Surely some event sparked all of this and not just the head of the army saying, "Kill them for opposing us."

No, actually. That is exactly what happened. This has happened to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt over and over again. This was a cold calculated maneuver carried out by the military and the elite.:

"Last Sunday, Interior Ministry officials told journalists that the police would move in at dawn to choke off the sit-ins, cutting off food and water and gradually escalating nonlethal force. But overnight, diplomats said, Mr. Ibrahim reconsidered, worried that a gradual approach would expose the police to Brotherhood retaliation, for which he could be blamed.

Two days later, Mr. Ibrahim and the government told Mr. ElBaradei that they had a new plan to minimize casualties: maximum force to get it over with quickly, the Western diplomats said. And the military had agreed to support the police. But the attack the next morning left more than 600 dead, according to official figures that soon grew. By midday, Mr. ElBaradei had resigned."

They were waiting for the perfect opportunity, yes. However, they would be unable to if Morsi had the support of the people. The Egyptian military would be unable to sustain itself without the Egyptian people.

The people? This isn't about the people. This isn't a Western democracy. It's about the military, don't you understand? They just executed and banned an opposing political group, actions that are supported by the same people you somehow think would slowly start to learn to love the Brotherhood. Egypt is designed to make this impossible. Morsi tried to purge the new government of Mubarak stooges and guess what happened? The military got upset. And the military has the support of the people, because it is no secret that they run the country and have done so since the 60s. The Brotherhood, too, by design, is going to be unpopular with the masses. That's just how it works. There was no magic speech Morsi could have made, no policy, nothing. If he ever got too popular the military would just undermine him. You know how there was a gas shortage that somehow just magically fixed itself the day of the coup? Hmm, weird. I guess we should just chalk that up to Morsi's incompetence, right? Suuuure. Remember, the military owns upwards of 40% of the economy. That is called leverage. Morsi had none of it.

Blacks were once held in slavery, and now look who is in the White House. Things can change. Morsi wasn't all that popular, this is true. However, by making the right moves the MB could have changed that.

In 250 years? I guess, I a lot can happen in 250 years or so.

Sometime I wonder if you ignore half of what I say for the sake of arguing. If the Egyptian military went in and removed a popular president, all hell would have broken loose.

Oh my god, you're so close. It's right there in front of you! You just typed it out! "If the Egyptian military went in and removed a popular president, all hell would have broken loose." DUH! How are you not connecting the dots here? The military is the one who picks the president in the first place! You vote for the wrong guy we'll just kick him out. Egypt's democracy is a farce.

Where is this freedom loving American supporting a fascist military dictatorship? I can't find this person. I mean seriously, that is some extremely acrobatic logic you have to come to the conclusion that because I said it could have ended differently and that things aren't playing out as simply as you state that I somehow support all of this.

"Yeah so lucky that the security personnel put up with having rocks and molotovs thrown at them when they tried to handle things the peaceful way. Sometimes, you don't have much choice but to take the unpopular path forward." Sometimes you just have to shoot a bunch of unarmed protesters. eh, whatever. No biggie. hey, what do I care? It's not like I live there anyway, doesn't affect me at all. Bash the fash, though. That is totally me.

Yeah, a year after the election, and after Morsi's politically suicidal moves, it was the biggest protest Egypt has ever seen. However, you're trying to make it look like it happened the next day before they could do anything.

What could the MB have done? I really wanna know.

Nah, I've seen this situation play out before.

I seriously doubt you have. Let me ask you again, who actually owns Egypt? Who banned newspapers, arrested political opponents, canceled the democratic process and committed mass murder in the middle of the streets? The Muslim Brotherhood or the military? Who saw this coming? Did you?

At 8/18/13 01:28 AM, Warforger wrote: Wait a minute, before the military ousted him people were condemning him for trying to rewrite the Constitution so that it wasn't a Democracy and now people are complaining that he's been removed? Christ make up your minds already.

Very true. This also shows the lose-lose situation that the US is in with Egypt. We've had a relationship with the military for decades, but when Morsi came in, we tried to work with him even if it wasn't ideal to work with an Islamist. Now the pro-military Egyptians are angry that we tried to work with Morsi, but had we intervened and ousted him, those same people would scream "Imperialism!" It sucks to have to condemn the military, although we'd still be getting crap had we condoned their actions.

Apparently the White House "secretly" put a hold on military aid to Egypt. Here is an interesting tidbit which made me scratch my head:

“The decision was we’re going to avoid saying it was a coup, but to stay on the safe side of the law, we are going to act as if the designation has been made for now,” said one administration official. “By not announcing the decision, it gives the administration the flexibility to reverse it.”

How fucking weak is that? I don't really understand why the administration can't just publicly come out and say they're suspending aid because of the fact that a thousand innocent unarmed protesters just got slaughtered in one of the largest massacres in recent history. That would bypass the whole obnoxious coup-not-a-coup wordplay.

At 8/19/13 06:44 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Very true. This also shows the lose-lose situation that the US is in with Egypt. We've had a relationship with the military for decades, but when Morsi came in, we tried to work with him even if it wasn't ideal to work with an Islamist. Now the pro-military Egyptians are angry that we tried to work with Morsi, but had we intervened and ousted him, those same people would scream "Imperialism!" It sucks to have to condemn the military, although we'd still be getting crap had we condoned their actions.

Why does it suck that we have to condemn the military? We might lose the respect of a murderous junta?

You know, I was wondering if recent events indicated that Egypt became a bona fide military junta.

Lo and behold, a visit to Wikipedia's page on Egypt revealed to me that Wikipedia considers it a military junta now.

What a sad state of affairs.

At 8/19/13 09:26 PM, Light wrote: Lo and behold, a visit to Wikipedia's page on Egypt revealed to me that Wikipedia considers it a military junta now.

That means absolutely nothing as any idiot armed solely with a keyboard and a politically charged lexicon could have made that change.

At 8/19/13 10:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/19/13 09:26 PM, Light wrote: Lo and behold, a visit to Wikipedia's page on Egypt revealed to me that Wikipedia considers it a military junta now.

That means absolutely nothing as any idiot armed solely with a keyboard and a politically charged lexicon could have made that change.

I suppose I have more faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia than some folks.

Of course, I know better than to use Wikipedia as a primary source of information, but it usually doesn't let me down.

I've made an edit or two when I knew the information on an article was wrong, but Wikipedia is, all and all, pretty great.

At 8/19/13 10:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: That means absolutely nothing as any idiot armed solely with a keyboard and a politically charged lexicon could have made that change.

it says "Provisional government appointed by military junta" which seems pretty spot on to me. What would you call it?

At 8/19/13 09:08 PM, Feoric wrote:
Why does it suck that we have to condemn the military? We might lose the respect of a murderous junta?

It sucks to condemn a powerful group in Egypt that the West can trust more easily than the Brotherhood.