Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/19/13 11:39 PM, Ranger2 wrote: It sucks to condemn a powerful group in Egypt that the West can trust more easily than the Brotherhood.

I don't know if "trust" is the right word, considering the massive powergrab that just transpired. But I think I understand what you're saying here. Considering that the bulk of the power structure left behind by Mubarak is mainly intact and still functional (as we can all see) it is logical to deduce that the military, as oppressive and fascist it may be, is most likely the only institution that has the best potential to preserve Egypt as a functional state. It seems that a majority of Egyptians agree with this, which is why the Brotherhood never had a chance even if they tried to be a party for the people. However, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube and I think a change in our foreign policy is needed even though in the end there is largely little difference between Sisi and Mubarak. The Gulf states have already made their contingency plans to fill our void.

At 8/20/13 12:17 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry, did you say they were unarmed? Because that isn't true we know at least some of them have arms and are activley using them against military forces.

Don't even start with that.

At 8/20/13 01:21 AM, Feoric wrote:

I don't know if "trust" is the right word, considering the massive powergrab that just transpired. But I think I understand what you're saying here.

The military is easier to trust because we've worked with it in the past and because it has no Islamist ideology. It's always easier to work with a group whose ideology can't be interpreted as "Death to America!"

At 8/20/13 08:41 AM, Ranger2 wrote: The military is easier to trust because we've worked with it in the past and because it has no Islamist ideology. It's always easier to work with a group whose ideology can't be interpreted as "Death to America!"

Just a quick point for clarity:
"Death To America" is a mistranslation of Marg bar Amrika. It means "Down with America" in terms of our foreign policy, and not mass murder.

And it's illegal for the US to finance coups and military regimes. So there's that, too.

At 8/20/13 08:41 AM, Ranger2 wrote: The military is easier to trust because we've worked with it in the past and because it has no Islamist ideology. It's always easier to work with a group whose ideology can't be interpreted as "Death to America!"

We don't have the same relationship with the military now. Obama's foreign policy in Egypt has been awful and both the military and the Brotherhood have nothing but contempt for the US. Sisi has absolutely no intentions on working with our diplomatic envoy:

"Mr. Graham recalled arguing with General Sisi. “If Morsi had to stand for re-election anytime soon, he’d lose badly,” the senator remembered saying. “Do you agree?”

“Oh, absolutely,” the general answered.

“Then what you’re doing now is making him a martyr,” Mr. Graham said. “It’s no longer about how badly they ruled the country and how they marginalized the democratic institutions. It’s now about you.”
...
When Egyptian state news media leaked reports of an imminent government statement that diplomacy had failed, the diplomats were stunned, and scrambled to hold it off.

The next day, Mr. León, the European envoy, assured the Islamists that although the prisoner release had fallen through, at least the Egyptians had agreed to pull back the statement, Brotherhood leaders said.

A half-hour later, it was issued nonetheless. “The phase of diplomatic efforts has ended,” it declared, calling the sit-ins “nonpeaceful” and obliquely blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for any coming violence.

The Americans and Europeans were furious, feeling deceived and manipulated. “They were used to justify the violence,” Mr. Darrag said in an interview. “They were just brought in so that the coup government could claim that the negotiations failed, and, in fact, there were no negotiations.”"

The military likes us just as much as the Brotherhood does.

At 8/20/13 04:00 PM, Feoric wrote: Obama's foreign policy in Egypt has been awful

It was impossible for him to do anything right. If he had chosen the side of the brotherhood, people would have been chastising him for alienating important regional allies like Saudi Arabi, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, and for putting an Islamist regime in control of Egypt, the Sinai and the Suez Canal that ultimately sympathises more with the Hamas than with the US or its allies. Besides, as pointed out in that Daily Beast article, Saudi Arabia can easily compensate any loss in military funding that the Egyptian army may experience, so if US seriously wanted to 'flex muscle' they should have gone all the way, and in doing so they would have generated loads of criticism anyhow, brought a huge financial burden upon the US and emboldened Jihadist and ultraconservative groups that see any US influence in the region as a threat and an insult.

If he had chosen the side of the military, he would have alienated Qatar and Turkey, and people would have chastised him for emboldening Islamist movements across the region (including the Taliban) by sending a message to them that they will not be allowed to democratically gain any power anyway. It has been US policy for years to try to engage Islamist movements in the democratic process and this would have killed that. Lots of criticism this way as well.

He could have pushed harder for negotiations but ultimately, the brotherhood and the Egyptian military have nothing to talk about. The brothers say they have won democratcially, going by the rules that were set beforehand, and they are right. The military says that the brotherhood was dividing Egypt and that a majority of the populace wanted him ousted and they are also right. When there are no outcomes that please both sides, there can be no settlement and the only way to resolve the conflict is through blood. That's also exactly what we're witnessing now, and those 600 casualties of last Tuesday will later turn out to have only been the beginning.

Now he's trying to stay out of it as much as possible and people are criticising him also. He could have done anything or nothing and people would have lambasted his policies for being a failure. Let's not forget that.

At 8/20/13 04:44 PM, lapis wrote: Now he's trying to stay out of it as much as possible and people are criticising him also. He could have done anything or nothing and people would have lambasted his policies for being a failure. Let's not forget that.

I think you're spot on but let's also not forget that the administration is ostensibly supporting a junta which just killed a thousand protesters. If Obama really wanted to wipe his hands clean of the situation then he should have cut the foreign aid package and let the Gulf states pick up the tab. He should call it a coup. But he's not going to do either of those things. The aid was "suspended" because the situation is too hot right now. I think he's just biding his time until everyone stops giving a shit about Egypt again, and then it will resume. Why not resume it after the coup is over? I don't have much sympathy for Obama right now.

At 8/20/13 08:48 AM, 24901miles wrote: Just a quick point for clarity:
"Death To America" is a mistranslation of Marg bar Amrika. It means "Down with America" in terms of our foreign policy, and not mass murder.

Who are you to translate for people who say that? There are plenty who mean it in the literal term.

And it's illegal for the US to finance coups and military regimes. So there's that, too.

Would you prefer a radical Islamist government or a military government? It's the lesser of two evils. Welcome to the 21st century, where there is rarely a classic good vs evil battle.

At 8/20/13 04:00 PM, Feoric wrote: The military likes us just as much as the Brotherhood does.

I see your point, at this time you can only pick the lesser of two evils. I never expected the military to be best buddies with the US but they are less likely to finance terrorist groups that may attack the US or its allies.

Keep in mind, I think that Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood was moderate and could be worked with. This is not the same Muslim Brotherhood we dealt with in 2012. This is a more radical brand, as shown by the new rhetoric. I talk about this in my original post.

At 8/20/13 10:35 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 8/20/13 08:48 AM, 24901miles wrote: Just a quick point for clarity:
"Death To America" is a mistranslation of Marg bar Amrika. It means "Down with America" in terms of our foreign policy, and not mass murder.

Who are you to translate for people who say that? There are plenty who mean it in the literal term.

No, they don't. Marg bar ____ has a specific meaning. If they were to say "Death To America" in the way you're implying, they would say "Kill All Americans".

And it's illegal for the US to finance coups and military regimes. So there's that, too.

Would you prefer a radical Islamist government or a military government? It's the lesser of two evils. Welcome to the 21st century, where there is rarely a classic good vs evil battle.

Welcome to the 21st century, where the media is used as a weapon and you're damned no matter what you do. We have already given the Egyptian Military plenty of financial aid, and it's best to let them sort this out on their own.

At 8/20/13 08:48 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 8/20/13 08:41 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

And it's illegal for the US to finance coups and military regimes. So there's that, too.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

At 8/22/13 06:47 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry we now have actual footage available to the provocation of these "protesters," And people want to say the military is overreacting when the MB rioters are biting off more then they can chew.

Look at these violent radical rioters. Thanks god the military was there to mow them down in the streets.

At 8/22/13 07:18 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/22/13 06:47 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry we now have actual footage available to the provocation of these "protesters," And people want to say the military is overreacting when the MB rioters are biting off more then they can chew.

Look at these violent radical rioters. Thanks god the military was there to mow them down in the streets.

Holy shit, I've never actually witnessed attacks on these protesters by the Egyptian military until now. This is appalling.

At 8/23/13 01:32 AM, Ceratisa wrote: As opposed to the other ACTUAL attacks on police stations and bombings and fire bombings, Feo.

"Actual" attacks haha. As if unloading live rounds into a bunch of protesters isn't a real attack. You're just doing the regular motions of trying to justify the slaughter of 1000 people you don't give a shit about. And before you come back here with some other pithy remark:

At 8/17/13 10:25 PM, Feoric wrote: And for the record, I'm by no means a Morsi supporter, but civil society cannot exist in the face of unwarranted open violence.

The Brotherhood have committed their fair share of crimes, they were not a group of angels. I won't even the deny the fact that they burned Coptic churches, went after Christians, etc. But if you're going to use that as a slipshod justification for the unwarranted murder of people who dared to defy military rule then there is something wrong with you.

I'm sorry popular revolution isn't something you back though.

You're just an authoritarian bootlicker. If you think a junta is a "popular revolution" you're just an idiot. But I do appreciate the delicious irony in the fact that the Brotherhood was democratically elected after a popular revolution.

At 8/22/13 08:47 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: so Egypt did get those M1A1 Abram tanks!

Actually, those appear to be a newer variant of the M60 Patton tank, not the Abrams.