I remember people here telling me that the military coup in Egypt wasn't really a coup...

[Gravitycollapse]

And that the transition of power would be peaceful...

Is this the peaceful process talked about?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/14/world/meast/egypt-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Egypt on edge after at least 278 killed in bloodiest day since revolution

I said it before and I'll say it again. Military coups do not lead to a peaceful state. They just don't. And this one is certainly no different.

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. I've been watching this as closely as possible and the Brotherhood began shooting bullets

from their headquarters at peaceful protesters celebrating Morsi's ousting.

Google "Morsi Hamas Jail". Morsi was a dictator and may be guilty of crimes.

The Muslim Brotherhood could have stepped down gracefully, but they =began= their response with live ammunition. The Egyptian army had to become involved. This is the equivalent of if Rick Scott in Wisconsin were finally peacefully ousted from power via a populist uprising and "tea party" Koch shills responded by firing live rounds at celebrating, righteous protesters.

This is a tragedy but Morsi is unwanted and the brotherhood should get the message and get out. The people of Egypt have spoken.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. What are you talking about? All accounts I've seen said the security forces opened fire.

You are justifying the massacre of hundreds of people by the junta. Do you really want to go there?

Speaking of Google, try "Mubarek deep state" or "Egypt deep state."

Those nice liberal Occupier types in Tamarod may have brought down Morsi, but the generals are running the show. This is a military dictatorship. A state of emergency is in place. They're shooting journalists.

Given the reality on the ground in Egypt today, your post is remarkably twisted.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. I am justifying NOTHING. Didn't say it, didn't imply it. FFS. What is wrong with you people?

People who have not actually been watching livestream and video out of Egypt as it happened?

"Mursi's opponents claim say they were set upon by the president's backers.

'They came from the 6th of October bridge. They beat us and shot at us. We were demonstrating here peacefully. They are from the Muslim Brotherhood. Look at the empty bullets,' said one anti-Mursi demonstrator.

The Muslim Brotherhood says it will not work with the new military-backed leadership. Morsi's supporters say the armed forces have wrecked Egypt's democracy."

Muslim Brotherhood shooting unarmed civilians in Egypt

Published on Jun 30, 2013

"protesters use fire and both ends throw rocks and glass bottles when a person appears from a window at the headquarter with some kind of rifle and begins to shoot random gunfire at the protesters"

I really would like if people would stop throwing bullshit at me for knowing something they don't, for assuming things about which they know nothing, based entirely upon the tragedy we're seeing today, which could easily have been avoided by the Brotherhood accepting their genuine defeat.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. This is from two weeks ago. What does it have to do with today?

Other than a desperate attempt to justify the military's actions.

I'm sorry, I've been watching this for a long time. I didn't just tune in today.

[Igel]

41. You're being a weasel.

Stop it. You're a grown up, not still in elementary school.

"Did you eat the cookies?"
"Johnny was in the kitchen."

We expect people to not speak randomly. When a kid answers that way, even he's old enough to know that his speech had better be relevant otherwise he's mentally ill, he's implicitly assserting through conversational norms that Johnny did it. He may *claim* ignorance of that, but he knows better and he squirms because he knows his elders know this, as well.

It's called conversational implicature. It doesn't imply anything, not logically. But it implicates that Johnny is the guilty party. It's a useful tool, you should learn it: A lot of what we call "lies" by politicians and others are nothing more than violations of conversational implicature. They don't state anything that's false, but implicate something that's false. Standard lawyer tactic. Standard used-car salesman tactic. "What condition's the car in?" "It's only been driven 12000 miles." Not an answer, but it's assumed to be an answer. "Before it crashed through a guardrail and sat in the lake for 12 years" would be important information left out.

You say what's relevant and it's assumed that what you said is relevant. In that case, you're dodging responsibility because, well, you just don't like being challenged. Otherwise you're saying that you gibber and spout random, unrelated drivel because, well, you just don't know how to carry on a conversation in accordance with most established norms.

So which is it? Dodgy or gibbering?

[Gravitycollapse]

6. So they should have just stepped aside after being deposed by the military?

They are the rightful leaders of the nation.

The people of Egypt are speaking right now and they are being murdered by the hundreds.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Morsi is a criminal and was rightly deposed. The Brotherhood has been shooting and shooting at

peaceful protesters since Morsi was ousted and warrants issued for his arrest for questioning regarding his possibly aiding Hamas.

The Brotherhood is not wanted. They lost. They are engaging in revenge. The military stepped in because of this.

[Gravitycollapse]

8. The Muslim Brotherhood won the goddamn democratic elections. What more do you want?

They haven't lost by any measure of public empowerment. They were simply removed from office by a military coup.

Morsi may be a criminal. But if that is the case, should all leaders who are criminals be deposed? Should we have deposed GWB? How about President Obama?

[Fire Walk With Me]

10. NO, they were removed a month ago by a populist uprising per the

June 30 video, the night it was decided.

[Gravitycollapse]

11. No, they were removed by a military coup. That is not a populist uprising.

[oberliner]

26. June 30: Seeking New Leadership, Millions of Egyptians Take to the Streets

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/seeking-new-leadership-millions-of-egyptians-take-to-the-streets/277419/

Did that not actually happen?

[Gravitycollapse]

28. With a population of 85 million, a million protesters would equal just 1.1% of the population.

Protest all you want. That doesn't mean that because a lot show up there is just cause to remove a democratically elected leader.

[oberliner]

31. Egypt group: 22 million signatures against Morsi

CAIRO (AP) — More than 22 million Egyptians have signed a petition calling for the country's Islamist president to step down, the youth group leading the signature campaign said Saturday on the eve of mass protests aimed at forcing Mohammed Morsi from office.

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-group-22-million-signatures-against-morsi-125919145.html

22 million would be significantly more than the 13 million that voted Morsi into office.

[Gravitycollapse]

32. "He did not say whether there had been an independent audit of the signatures."

Morsi's supporters, who have long doubted the validity and authenticity of the collected signatures, expressed skepticism about the final count.

"How do we trust the petitions?" asked Brotherhood member Ahmed Seif Islam Hassan al-Banna. "Who guarantees that those who signed were not paid to sign?"

I would be interested to find out how they managed to gain nearly as many signatures as the entire election garnered. Mark me down as skeptical.

[oberliner]

35. Well, alrighty then

All I can tell you is that I saw footage of the anti-Morsi protests and they were massive.

Whatever awful things are going on now, it is not fair to discount the populist movement that expressed itself in opposition to Morsi during those protests.

To pretend that the events of June 30 did not happen is not helpful in my view.

[eissa]

55. It was FAR more than 1 million

Estimates had it between 14-25 million. That is HUGE. The military didn't overthrow the government on their own, they acted upon the will of the people. And those people (the anti-Morsi protestors) were fired upon and killed in the hundreds as well. Look up Port Said soccer stadium massacre. Not to mention the many murdered in Tahrir Square by Morsi's goons.

There is no "waiting for the next election" when the party that wrote the constitution (after having blocked everyone else out) is also the party in power. The same party that was monopolizing power behind its president. The thing about religious tyrannies is that they believe in elections until they come to power (see Iran.) Egyptians decided that was not going to be their fate.

Your sympathies are so very, very misplaced.

[MADem]

33. The military, like it or not, has the overwhelming support of the people.

That's not fiction, that's fact. They don't want the MB running things, and they didn't want to wait for elections. Tens of millions signed the petition to get them out. Had they waited for elections, Mursi would have aggregated sufficient power to be able to cancel them and rule by decree--that's where he was heading, anyway, with his unilateral changes to laws.

The vast majority continue to support Al-Sisi's efforts.

It is an uncomfortable reality. It seems counter-intuitive, but there it is. This is a nation that understands this kind of thing--after all, it wasn't an "orderly process" that sent King Farouk packing and eventually put Nasser in charge, to be followed by military leaders Sadat and Mubarak.

They don't seem to mind democratic elections, but by the very same token, they don't seem to want the slow slog of the democratic process when it comes to Mursi and his crackdowns and excesses and abrogation of rights for women and discrimination against religious minorities. That, and he was flushing the economy down the toilet.

They wanted a revolution, they wanted it right effin' now, and they asked the Army to do the heavy lifting.

What happens next is what will decide Egypt's fate. Will Al Sisi call for elections in an orderly fashion, or will he sit his ass down in Mubarak's old seat and pull an Al "I'm in Charge" Haig, or will he call for elections but hover in the background, sort of like a secular-ish Supreme Leader, making sure everyone colors inside the lines?

One thing that is certain no matter what happens; the violence needs to be dialed down, and soon--they may have to go to curfews to keep order. This bloodshed cannot continue for very long, because the MB will--I guarantee this--throw women and children on the front lines in wholesale fashion to be slaughtered, because that is how they roll.

[Gravitycollapse]

36. There is little or no reason to assume that 22 million people actually signed that petition.

As there was no third party audit. And I would be very surprised if they were actually able to get nearly as many signatures as the total votes in the election.

What are the odds the opposition manufactured the petition story? High enough to warrant further investigation.

[MADem]

40. I don't think anything will be gained from doing a "back-n-forth."

Yes it is, no it isn't, etc.

All I can tell you is that from everything I have heard from Egyptians (some of whom are on an extended "vacay" here for obvious reasons ) and read in publications covering this matter is that the population overwhelmingly supports the military, at least for now.

What they do in the future, how they set it right, will determine if people continue to support them.

If the military uses the Ataturk model, where the military steps in, pushes the incompetent leaders aside, re-establishes order, and then calls for new elections, all will be well. It looks like it will be a tough slog to get back to that model, though. If the state of emergency doesn't slow the violence down, it'll be tough to figure out what will come of this situation.

I do know one thing--we don't need to stick our beak in. This is an internal situation; we managed to shut up when they elected that incompetent misogynistic hater of other religions aside from sunni Islam, we should just step aside and let them sort it out. It will go one of three ways--Al-Sisi will run the joint, Al-Sisi will call for/schedule elections, or there will be civil war that will decide the mess once and for all. I'm rooting for Number Two, myself. Time will tell, though.

[Igel]

47. Not a random sample.

Society is more stratified than in the US, yet you get things like the New Yorker that a lot of people in "fly-over country" don't find reflect their interest or values.

The educated and modernist "class", mostly young and urban, are pro-coup. Not always for matters of politics and ideology, but because they will do better in a meritocracy and want to get good jobs and have families (not to mention the dignity that comes with power, property, and family).

I got my lesson in this in 1993 when I hung out with a bunch of non-juvenile non-English-speaking Russians for the first time. All the college-age kids, all the intellectuals, all the emigres were overjoyed, yet a bit worried, about the collapse of the USSR. Most of the monolingual Russians in Russia were just plain worried--unless they were young and educated. The newspapers only really knew young, educated, English-speaking Russians, so their reporting was biased because of the reporters' limitations. The reporters didn't see their own limitations.

You want to find the majority, you get to learn Egyptian Arabic and look at a different kind of publications, leave the nicer areas of Cairo and Alexandria. As in the US, the "liberals" (I don't consider most self-styled Egyptian "liberals" to be liberal) have trouble understanding how, when they're so right, they can lose an election. Some of the most strident believe they can only lose if the elections are rigged or if the masses are so incompetent and so unaware of their "true interests" that they can't be allowed to govern themselves.

In the latter case they think the masses are "people" like the courts consider my mother a "person." She's my ward by virtue of dementia, with no authority to enter into contracts or to vote.

[MADem]

49. The polling by the Egyptian and regional media was nationwide, not just limited to Cairo.

Mursi has very little support; just his zealots.

This isn't just about religion and establishment of an aggressively Islamic state, or the violence/discrimination/suppression-repression of women and ethnic/religious minorities, though that is a piece of it all that many like to focus upon. This is--quite bluntly--a "first I look at the purse" scenario. Egyptians are losing money in a BIG way since Mursi came on the scene. He's fucked up the economy with pure incompetence; the tourist industry, a huge part of the economic pie, is in the shits, and people are suffering. People aren't willing to give up their economic security for Friday fervor--they just aren't.

Perhaps if Mursi had been better with the coin, he wouldn't have been rejected by such a massive percentage of the population, despite his repressive style of governance.

[Igel]

42. Actually, a poll showed that 70+% of the population does not.

Here's the correct fix: Just redefine "people" to exclude MB supporters. That's what a lot of people do.

Some would still oppose the coup, but they'd be a minority.

[MADem]

48. No, no, no--that seventy percent ACTIVELY disapproves of Mursi. There's no ambiguity.

They wanted Mursi gone and they do not support the efforts of his supporters.

Sources:

http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/CairoReview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=403

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/cairo-crackdown-inevitable-to-avoid-loss-of-credibility-1.1494481

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/22/press-release-baseera-public-opinion-poll-about-the-egyptian-streets-sympathy-towards-demonstrations-in-support-of-former-president-mohammed-morsi/

?resize=300%2C225

We'll know more on Friday, when more demonstrations are anticipated.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/67154/egypts-military-chief-calls-for-rallies-to-support-crackdown-on-violence-terrorism

[David__77]

9. I think you miss the point by a bit.

Most or a plurality of people did vote for MB, on three separate voting occasions. They certainly didn't lose those contests. They lost a different soft of power contest that does not rely on majorities necessarily: a military struggle.

If MB were progressive and defensible, I'd say that they should fight it out and overturn the coup. But they are not progressive or defensible in any respect whatsoever. So I would instead hope they give up.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. If Morsi is a criminal, what does that make General Sisi? He just ordered a massacre.

Not some street level thuggery, of which all sides have done plenty.

This is nothing more than a massacre. And we all know who is in charge.

[Egalitarian Thug]

43. If it's not a simple binary, many American brains are no longer capable of

dealing with it, whatever it is. Look at I/P, President Obama, the Democratic/republican Parties, smoking, guns, smoking guns, cops, pit bulls, criminal prosecutions, banks, laws, various states, women, men, sex, gays, celebrities, ad infinitum.

[cali]

45. I suggest you actually do some reading. Read Engel, Feldman, Murphy

None of those experts concur with you at all. They all speak fluent Arabic and they've all lived in the region. And they are hardly the only ones.

You are not well informed. and I suspect, from reading your posts, I know what motivates you.

[leftstreet]

2. So when does the US cut off aid?

Egypt: global outcry steps up pressure on US to suspend aid to military

14 Aug 2013
...
The White House said "the world is watching" after a day on which at least 278 people were killed. But there was still no sign that the US was prepared to characterise Morsi's removal by the army as a coup – which would trigger an automatic congressional ban on $1.3bn in annual aid to the powerful Egyptian military.
...

Britain's foreign secretary, William Hague, said he was "deeply concerned" at the escalating violence and unrest. "I am disappointed that compromise has not been possible. I condemn the use of force in clearing protests and call on the security forces to act with restraint."

Baroness Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, who met Morsi in his place of detention earlier this month, said in a statement: "Confrontation and violence is not the way forward to resolve key political issues. I deplore the loss of lives, injuries and destruction in Cairo and other places in Egypt."

The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, condemned the violence and urged an effort at "inclusive reconciliation". France and Germany also called for dialogue.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/egypt-protests-aid-military

[oberliner]

27. Rand Paul has been working on it for close to a month

Senate kills Rand Paul attempt to cut Egypt aid

The vote was to table the amendment, meaning a “yea” vote was against Paul’s plan. The vote was 86-13.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted with Paul, as did a small group of GOP senators that included Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/egypt-aid-rand-paul-94980.html#ixzz2c0UkMl64

[Warpy]

4. This is why violent revolutions are so dangerous

After the heady rush at getting rid of a bad regime, the jockeying for top of the dunghill in the new regime begins and the people who thought things were going to improve find themselves being target practice for battling factions as they get stuck in the middle with no one to speak for them.

I think it likely most people hoped the military would be able to restore some order. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

I agree with El Baradei that crushing them violently was a big blunder as long as most of them were remaining peaceful. Eventually, they'd have gotten tired of the whole business, probably when inclement weather started to roll in at the end of the summer.

Now the Muslim Brotherhood will be tighter, better trained, and much more able to confront the military the next time this happens. And it will.

[AZ Progressive]

12. Yay! You Were Right! Here's Your Cookie

disclaimer: I've never participated in a discussion about the recent events in Egypt, but I just had to mock this

[stevenleser]

15. Is a coup to remove a Democratically elected leader who seized total power with the intent of

re-establishing a Democracy a coup? I don't know.

It shouldn't be called the same thing as a military toppling a true Democratic leader to establish military rule.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Morsi was truly and wholly democratically elected, even if you want to think otherwise.

[stevenleser]

17. That is what I said. You are not contradicting me. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

18. But you want to redefine his ousting to make it more palatable, correct?

[stevenleser]

19. Redefine it from what? Have you defined it? nt

[Gravitycollapse]

21. He was deposed by a military coup. That is exactly what happened.

You seem to be on the fence about that.

[stevenleser]

23. There seem to be two kinds of military coups. There are the kind we are most familiar with...

i.e., these four as examples where the military deposed a Democratic elected leader so that a military junta could run the country with an iron fist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Argentine_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Panama#Military_coups_and_coalitions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Then there is a military coup that has started to appear in recent times where the military overthrows an existing order in order to re-establish Democracy. Many of the people who are currently in power after a military coup fall into that category. Wiki has a list of all current leaders who came to power as a result of a military coup...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Post-military-coup_governments

... and a surprising majority of these are not members of the military. You seem to be suggesting these two kinds of military coups are the same thing and you act shocked or surprised that someone might disagree.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. You are the one who said Morsi wasn't truly democratically elected. Stand behind your words.

In reality, he was truly democratically elected. And there was no reason to support a military coup, which is what happened, even if you want to try and redefine it to fit your preconceived narrative, when he simply could have been voted out (although now we'll never know if he would have been voted out since the military took the power away from the electorate).

Now we are watching as the military dictatorship massacres hundreds of Egyptians a day. Are you telling me Morsi was worse because he was trying to consolidate power? Was he murdering hundreds of his citizens a day?

[stevenleser]

25. Why would you lie about something obvious in the subject line of my first response to your OP?

it's hard to have a conversation with you when you are blatantly lying about what I wrote in my first response to you.

[Gravitycollapse]

38. Let me ask you, is a popular election win a public mandate?

If it is so, and any reasonable, knowledgeable person would say so, then Morsi had political capital to enact his agenda. And if he did not, then he should have been voted out next election.

Deposing him with a military coup, and I feel the need to stress with you that it was in fact a bonafide, real life military coup, is counterintuitive to a democratic state.

So either you don't support the democratic process, or you have some reason to believe he was not truly democratically elected.

[stevenleser]

53. Since you like Physics, in the same way that instantaneous velocity differs from average velocity.

An election measures only at that exact moment in time. That is why in an ideal Democracy, you have things like frequent elections and the right of recall and checks and balances.

The fewer of those things you have, the easier it is for things to happen like happened here. What was a Democratically elected leader stopped behaving Democratically and lost popular support.

[Xithras]

44. The Egyptian military, like the US Military, is sworn to defend the constitution and people.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that Teabaggers took Congress and the White house over the next few years. Now let's say that one of the first things the new President does is "decree" a law granting him absolute authority over the country, and declares that the United States is a Baptist Christian nation, that the First Amendment is to be ignored, and that all other religions are false and won't be given official recognition. Abortion is banned, voting rights laws are struck down, women are demoted to second class status, and since the President has declared himself "above" the Supreme Court, there's nothing you or they can do about it.

After a few months of this abuse, with millions of people protesting in Washington DC, the US Army moves in to arrest the President and disband Congress, citing their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and the fact that the President (while elected) was clearly operating completely outside of the Constitutional bounds of the office that he was elected to.

Who do you support? The "elected" President and Congress? Or the Army?

[cali]

46. That is a laughable comparison. breathtakingly ill informed.

The Egyptian Constitution(s) are hardly the stable document that the U.S. Constitution is. And that's just for starters.

Ridiculous.

[Xithras]

50. I realize that there are no good guys in this fight

Morsi is an Islamist who had little to no regard for minority or womens rights, and wanted to largely turn Egypt into a right wing theocracy. He's Egypt's version oof a Santorum or Bachmann. And yes, he did claim extraconstitutional powers that went far beyond what he was elected to do.

The military, of course, if full of Mubarak cronies, has exercised the exact same powers that they blasted Morsi over, and completely failed to live up to any claims of protecting a "democratic" Egypt when they didn't immediately hand power over to a civilian interim authority.

Both are guilty of shooting down unarmed opposition protesters, and of standing by while third party groups killed innocents in their name.


While neither is particularly attractive, if the choice is between a right wing fascist "democracy", and a secular military dictatorship, I'll take the Army. I, like most of the street protesters in Egypt who started this whole thing in the first place, would PREFER to see a secular democracy in place, but that clearly isn't coming anytime soon. Neither the Brotherhood or the army seem to have that as a genuine goal at this point.

[eissa]

56. Not really

Yes, he won the popular vote in a democratic election. However, if you look into the lead-up into that election, it really was a fluke that the MB won. Combined, the various secular groups had far more votes. Had they consolidated behind one candidate, there is no doubt they could've won. But being that they were all new, the various factions ended up splitting the vote. The top two winners, therefore, were the two groups that were around the longest: the MB, and Mubarak's party (represented by Ahmed Shafik.) Unable to bring themselves to vote for a member of the regime they fought so hard to overthrow, the majority of people held their collective noses and voted for the MB. They learned VERY quickly that it was a huge mistake. They are now correcting that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. Morsi seized total power? Apparently not.

He clearly had no control over the military and the repressive apparatus, which deposed him. And which is now in charge. And massacring Egyptians by the hundreds. And killing journalists. And imposing a state of emergency.

[stevenleser]

22. You could say that for any dictator who is ultimately deposed. "Total" is always relative. nt

[LittleBlue]

51. Their intent is not to re-establish a democracy

Elections have been put off indefinitely, and when they come back certain groups will almost certainly be banned.

It would be like the military deposing Obama and only permitting Republicans on the ballots.

[stevenleser]

52. How do you know their intent? Certain groups? One group whose past leader wanted to be dictator?

Their intent seems to be different than you described.

[LittleBlue]

57. Your alternative is a dictatorship that is currently slaughtering hundreds

of innocent protestors. Don't you feel the slightest bit of shame?

Stay classy

[stevenleser]

58. "Your"? So you cant make an argument without imputing ownership I never asserted? Good to know nt

[LittleBlue]

59. You are clearly defending the coup in this thread

If that isn't your intent, you've dozens of edits to make.

Start with the absurdity that Morsi had "total power" while being deposed.

[stevenleser]

60. No, I'm not. Most people can tell the difference between discussing and taking a side. nt

[WilliamPitt]

29. Meta

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Let's see... Elected by popular vote. Deposed by the military and arrested. Yup... coup. n/t

[Socal31]

34. Sad to see otherwise very smart people in the DU community arguing over this.

Take a step back from the team and look at this objectively. We are arguing over if this is a coup, and sound like Teabaggers arguing over Jesus riding dinosaurs.

[stevenleser]

37. The OP was started as a snark against other unnamed DUers so it was flamebait from the beginning. nt

[limpyhobbler]

39. Well this sucks. How horrible.

[Puzzledtraveller]

54. another gambit

in an endless game of chess by the ptb's. It's by design.