Egypt considers dissolving Muslim Brotherhood
Source: Irish Times
Egyptian prime minister Hazem el-Beblawi has proposed the legal dissolution of the Muslim Brotherhood and the government is studying the idea, a government spokesman said.
>
Mr Beblawi had made the proposal to the minister of social affairs - the ministry responsible for licensing non-governmental organisations, spokesman Sherif Shawky said. “It is being studied currently,” he said.
The Brotherhood was dissolved by Egypt’s military rulers in 1954, but registered itself as a non-governmental organisation in March in a response to a court case brought by opponents of the group who were contesting its legality.
The Brotherhood, founded in 1928, also has a legally registered political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, which was set up in 2011 after the uprising that led to the downfall of veteran autocrat Hosni Mubarak.
Read more: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/egypt-considers-dissolving-muslim-brotherhood-1.1497610
From Novinite, Sophia News Agency :
Egypt's PM Wants Muslim Brotherhood Dissolved http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=152924
and from China http://english.cri.cn/6966/2013/08/17/2941s782686.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JCMach1
(27,558 posts)
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Probably angle it so's the Brotherhood are declared to be terrorists aka doin' a George. All the Bro would need to do would be change their name to Anti-Muppets.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The Brotherhood was banned for fifty years or more, and as soon as they got a chance they won Egypt's first democratic election.
The "Interim Prime Minster" (read as, "the generals' lackey"
can do all of the "dissolving" he wants, the Muslim Brotherhood is still not very likely to liquefy for him.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)uglier and uglier. When you 'dissolve' a popular political group/former major dissident group, you create a guerrilla army. Of course, this would be convenient for the military, as it thinks it could handle it, and a major bogeyman is needed to support the publicly stated bases of the coup...
It was unbelievably naive for 'youth movements' to ask the military to depose the legitimately elected president of the country (of course, one elected during a theoretical period of transition from military to civilian rule). It's like asking a lion to move in to protect you from your pet dog that barks a lot and pees in the corner every now and then.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Even a casual observer can see that the youth groups you mention and other "liberal" factions who had lost Egypt's first democratic election to the Brotherhood were sold a bill of goods by the generals and other wealthy elites who did not want democracy to take root in their country. The liberal opposition was used by Egypt's generals (as were Coptic Christians) to justify the military coup and illegal arrest of President Morsi.
I would imagine by now most of those "liberal" activists realize that as soon as the generals finish with the Muslim Brotherhood, their turn to be "dissolved" will quickly come.
John2
(2,730 posts)other political groups to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those groups are not trying to force their religion on Egypt's society as law. I don't see why members of the Muslim Brother can't practice their religion among their members like any other religious group without forcing it down the throats of other people. It is very simple language, seperate the religion from politics. There must be some things they have in common with the general population? Things like housing, jobs and national security. Nobody is keeping them from practicing their religion or educating their children the way they want.
Igel
(35,309 posts)Homeschool is made difficult. And, in some states, well regulated.
As for the rest, you're arguing whose moral code should be foisted on society, no more, no less. You think yours is liberating; they think theirs is liberating.
You have no common basis for discussion. And neither has enough compassion or empathy to even try to see the other's point of view.
The best you can work out is to separate the ideology and religion from the parties themselves. Let the party be more pragmatic and democratic, so that if the ideology says X the party in power says, "we'll push towards X, but take into account others' views." The minority party says, "we accept that elections have consequences, but we'll push to have our views taken into account by participating in the process at every level."
What happened is that the majority leaders were pretty much what they should have been. I have trouble faulting the final version of the bills I've seen; the Constitution was ambiguous--some fairly "liberal" Islamic states have similar language, and it's all in the interpretation of boilerplate. I've even seen the initial version of bills at odds with what the MB wanted. With no hint of "glad all that election stuff is over, once and for all."
What I've seen in the minority party is an unwillingness to participate because they wouldn't get the whole enchilada. The worst interpretations of the Constitution are presumed to be the only interpretations, analogies in other countries notwithstanding. The MB and Morsi/parliament were conflated, with cleric pronouncements put into the mouth of Morsi. A failure to acknowledge that bills were revised as the result of compromise. And a real reluctance to admit that elections should have consequences if they don't like them.
You're talking fear. Most of that is based on what suspicions said would happen, with the last straw being a bill that changed and changed to be closer and closer to the "liberal" position with one exception: Banning funding from outside Egypt for NGOs. So guess where the funding that keeps most of the formerly opposition groups comes from?
MH1
(17,600 posts)in any light but horror.
When fundamentalist religious assholes decide to stop being assholes (cruel, vicious assholes, actually) towards half the human race, I might give a little more of a shit about how they are treated.
Frankly.
It's probably not a "good" view to hold, but I'm tired of their shit. ANY person who chose to "sit-in" with those assholes, "peacefully" or not, I can't find a whole lot of sympathy for. Sorry.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Do you care about them and the fact they were assaulted by gangs of thugs as they tried to leave? Do you care that the military and police allowed such gangs to gather around the Mosque in preparation to carry out such assaults?
Or is it only non-Muslim Brotherhood women who matter?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What you're talking about are criminals that should be arrested and tried. What the other poster was talking about is a set of laws that mandate that women are forever second class citizens UNDER THE LAW. How you can compare the two is beyond me but it doesn't surprise me that you're trying to deflect that the Muslim Brotherhood are a bunch of religious thugs who would make life miserable for women and I have no sympathy for them.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)do you have some salty tears for them or did they deserve it or what?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)not just the women. What does that have to do with what the Muslim Brotherhood represents for women in Egypt?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or do you like so many here apply your values and wants to others and if it doesn't quite fit, then what claim that Egyptian women are being forced?
got news there is no one monolithic application here, obviously there were women who supported the MB no matter how much you deny or denigrate them
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If you want to defend what the brotherhood (and all other Islamists) has in mind for women, you're no liberal.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I oppose Fascism and military coups overthrowing democratically elected governments. Military junta governments don't believe in equal rights for women, or for anyone else.
MH1
(17,600 posts)I am VERY sorry for any women who were forced to be there in the first place (implicitly or explicitly) by their spouses or families. As for those who willingly chose to side with men who would treat women as property, I am sorry they are so deluded, and while I wish the military had handled things better ... there are other people suffering in this world who are far more innocent than they are.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I may not like the way a religious sect treats women and children, but that does not mean I am prepared to write them all off, or remain silent when a crowd of thugs rapes them, beats them half to death and leaves them to be imprisoned by a military junta just because of their political affiliations. What is happening in Egypt is way beyond being justified by the Muslim Brotherhood's arcane and narrow-minded beliefs.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)They received about twenty five percent of the vote in the first election round--sounds like a lot, yes? Well, only forty percent of the country voted. That pulls down their actual approval considerably, and they had a massive GOTV effort.
Then, when Mursi wiped his ass on the constitution, started ruling by decree, started persecuting religious minorities, subjugating women, and changing laws to make pedophilia legal, and using the police to "settle scores," his approval went into the sewer.
The majority of the country is sick of their shit, and despite the horrific violence, most Egyptians are strongly supportive of the military at this time. Note that I said "at this time." That could and probably will change if the people aren't given another crack at this democracy thing.
I think most are hoping for the Turkish Ataturk model, where the military steps in when the government goes off the rails, and then retreats to the background and restores civilian rule of law after the crisis has passed. The military's oath is to serve the people by protecting the constitution, and based on Mursi's behavior, that is what they did. I agree with them that the MB needs to be outlawed. We have hate crime legislation in this country too, and they are an organization that peddles hatred.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)given that you have no means of knowing who those who didn't vote might otherwise of voted for.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Those who didn't vote simply didn't vote, but they do have opinions. Opinion polls have seventy percent of the nation--and they polled everywhere, not just in Cairo--decidedly unsympathetic to Mursi and his crew.
They want them gone, and I don't blame them. They made a mockery of the process with their abrogation of the constitution and their brutality and cronyism. Ya reap what ya sow.
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/13128/seventy-one-percent-of-egyptians-unsympathetic-wit
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I'm a member of both groups, and I totally agree with you.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a fanatical hard core RW religious hate group.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Surely you are aware that the vast majority of Egyptians are already Muslims, the same religion as the Muslim Brotherhood. Right?
As to your suggestion that Egyptians should, ". . . separate the religion from the politics." That is what I would prefer as well. However, I am not, and, I assume, you are not Egyptian.
MH1
(17,600 posts)For example, do not tar a Unitarian, Quaker, or Episcopalian with the ugly brush of fundamentalism. Heck, even within the Catholic Church there are your assholes and your non-assholes. (In the case of the Catholic Church you can point to the assholishness towards women and gays as doctrinal, but people stick with a church for a variety of reasons even when they don't fully agree with the official doctrine.)
I don't know a whole lot about Islam but I try hard to be clear that my problem is with the fundamentalist assholes, not every Muslim.
So the vast majority of Egyptians are Muslims. That doesn't make them all fundamentalist assholes. And it doesn't mean they support a group that wants to impose fundamentalist Islam as the law of the land.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I have read over and over again that the Moslem Brotherhood was going to impose its version of religion on Egypt. Now, that is true to a degree, Egypt being a Sunni country, all Islamic Mosques's Imans are picked by the President of Egypt, thus Mursi was going to replace any Iman who retired or died with his appointees, just like the Egyptian Military did when they ruled Egypt.
The problem is that is TRADITIONAL POWER OF THE RULER OF A SUNNI MOSLEM STATE. No one else can do it. Thus saying Mursi and the Moslem Brotherhood was going to "Take over the Religion of Egypt" would be the same as "Obama will take over the Justice Department when he becomes President" It is a RIGHT inherent in being the leader of a Sunni Moslem State, as is Egypt.
Under Coptic Rules, the President of Egypt also gets to select the leader of the Coptic Church, as the leaders of Egypt has done since the days of Constantine. When Persian took Egypt around 600 AD, Persia picked the leader of the Coptic Church. When Egypt was returned to Rule by the Eastern Roman Empire, the Emperor of Constantinople had the rights, and when Egypt was lost to the Arab Conquest, that right reverted to the Moslem Rulers of Egypt.
This was the claim that the Moslem Brotherhood was going to take over the Various religions of Egypt, for that has been the power of the ruler of Egypt since Constantine (and some indication Roman Emperors had appointed the Pagan Priests of the old Egyptian Religion, thus you can claim naming the religious leader so Egypt goes back to the days of the Pharaohs.
Sorry, such control over the leaders of the Religions of Egypt is a traditional power of the Leader of Egypt, and one of the power the Military wanted to retain.
Furthermore, since 1948, following Gandhi's lead in India, the Moslem Brotherhood has denounced violence. Thus how can you "FORCE" someone, when you refuse to use "Force"? This can be seen is the various protests against the coup, it is the ARMY and POLICE that revert to Violence NOT the protesters.
Lets be honest, what the Military feared was Mursi and the Brotherhood were planning to cut out the benefits of being a General, i.e. the right to be independent of Civilian Control, even to spending money (and diverting that money to their own pockets). Every power Mursi claimed, so do the present leaders of Egypt. The issue is NOT those powers, but WHO can use them against WHOM. The Generals do NOT want them to be used against THEM. The poor of Egypt wants the Moslem Brotherhood to use those powers AGAINST THE MILITARY HIERARCHY. Thus the Coup and the suppression of the Moslem Brotherhood.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)From all I've read, they protested for the same reasons they protested Mubarak. They did not like what the government is doing.
I suspect that you are right in that the military has used their millions in the streets to regain any lost power. One question is whether they have always been the strongest power there. Mubarak fell because they refused to support him. When you think about that, it is chilling how angry the Egyptian upper and middle class were with Mubarak that they took this to mean they were moving to a freer type of government. (intentionally not using the word democracy as that could just be western bias).
One real question is whether the military ever really relinquished power. Is it possible that what we saw with all the protests and lost of life was really at heart the military shedding two puppet governments - Mubarak and Morsi?
I don't see how you declare the party that won the last three elections (Morsi himself, the Constitution, and Parliament) illegal. It would be like declaring the Democratic or Republican party illegal here. In doing so, you are immediately denying them the ability to win at the ballot box. What avenues does that leave? There is no way that this could result in either a stable peaceful state -even under a strong man or even less a western style democracy.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If that is what you took from my posts, I have misspoken somewhere to give you that impression. Morsi's Presidency is the only legal government in Egypt, whether he is currently exercising power or not.
Your point about the army's continuing control is quite apt. One thing which must be done if Egypt is to ever have democracy is that the army must be put under total, effective civilian control.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)I switched at that point to address the thread and should have had a transition saying so. I think the coup really has made a bad situation worse.
As you say, Morsi is the legally elected leader and the legislature, dominated by his party, is also the legally elected Parliament. I don't see how Egypt can have the military kick out the elected government and delegitimize their party and then transition back to democracy as if nothing happened.
I can't imagine that there is anyone who both the Islamists and the "liberals" could agree on - so it is hard to imagine even setting up an accepted civilian government. What if the country is divided nearly 50/50 between two completely incompatible groups?
The US position seems to have been to try to work with whatever government was in power - Mubarak when he ruled, then trying to work with Morsi (and being attacked by the right for it) and then tacitly accepting the coup and trying very unsuccessfully to convince the military to avoid violence and to return the government to a civilian government. This is awful for the Middle East, but I can't really imagine the alternative - the US taking action against the coup to put the MB back in power after there were even larger protests against them than Morsi. I think we encouraged the actions against Mubarak, but here are trying to stay as neutral as one could until the last few days of violence.
In retrospect, the repeat of huge protests against the government and the military backing the protesters and kicking out the government is fascinating.
John2
(2,730 posts)is a political group, but I call them a Cult, like Al Qaeda. Religion don't mix with politics. They want followers which are no different than their slaves. Sort of like Jim Jones.
The Reverend Martin Luther King was a cult leader, seeking to enslave all Americans. He wanted to foist his view of equality as a God-given right on all those non-believers.
Must never mix religion and politics.
Heck, even the Founding Fathers anchored natural rights in a view of religion. They may have been Deists, but Deism is a fine and dandy religion (or group of oft-disparate religions, as the case actually is).
The abolitionist groups and suffragette groups that were religion based--e.g. Tubman or Anthony, makes no difference--mixed religion and politics. They obviously sought to enslave us all, causing us to bow to their personal totems.
Susan B. Anthony started out by founding her views in Quakerism and Unitarianism, only becoming agnostic as the result of observing hypocrisy and her own personal journey. Women's rights or temperance, no matter. Same rationale. God ordained it. Make it so, says Susan "Jean-Luc Picard" Anthony.
Wannabe slaver Harriet 'Jim Jones' Tubman? Seriously? You want to keep that line?
Or perhaps modify it in some thoughtful way?
to be kidding me? Martin Luther King didn't advocate enslaving anyone. Our own Constituition pushed that principle, all men were created equal. Your reasoning is just as convoluted and twisted as the white supremacists that thought they were better than any other race. Those are the only people wanted to enslave their fellow man. Don't play that game with me.
When there is no compromise, then the only other solution is a War. That is the reality of things. No one will push their religion on me. That is the way I see it. The Muslim Brotherhood who those who claim they are supporting some kind of democracy, cn't live with those whom oppose them. You and others can cry foul all you want and parade pictures of these people dying at the hands of those opposing them, but they bought it on themselves. I would rather die fighting then live under what you all a Democracy by majority rule.
I gave you a very clear example. Take a cue from General Tecumseh Sherman about the death of Slavery in America. I don't care what any dam Bible claim. Nobody can make a slave out of me without violence. You will always live in fear, just like Southern Slave owners. It is the same case with what the Muslim Brotherhood proposes. They want to enslave an entire society under their religious philosphy. That includes whom to marry and what life a woman or male should live. If they don't want to accept or keep their religious views among themselves and accept people freely, then there is nothing else remains, but a War to decide it. And I will have no hesitation in fighting for what I believe in. Sherman was right also, "War is Hell,"people would not want to make it anymore. If that is what the Muslim Brotherhood wants, then let it be.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)'Religion don't mix with politics'? Where? Is there somewhere on earth right now where religious appeals are not common political themes? Do you know how many political parties exist in Europe right now with "Christian" right in their name? Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, belongs to the Christian Democratic Union. Look out! They're a crazy cult! Or... not...
There are major 'Christian' parties in Switzerland, Italy, The Netherlands... And there are many, many smaller 'Christian' parties throughout Europe and the world. Australia's got a moderately successful one - Chile's got a rather successful Christian Democratic Party... Well, the thing is, there are way more political parties in the world with 'Christian' in their names than 'Muslim' ones. And, of course, the religious ideologies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are very close to each other - just different practices rising out of regional differences.
The Muslim Brotherhood was the only real threat for many years to military rule in several 'Middle Eastern' countries - Egypt in particular, and because that they had and have support. Many, many of their members have been rounded up over the years, sent to prison and killed - so they're pretty brave and tough. They do like the idea of political Islam, but if you have an issue with that, you should be vastly more scared of the overwhelming greater influence of Christian political parties over the world. Or perhaps it's not religion in general you have a problem with - you've really bought the whole Muslims are fanatics line of bull. If that's the case, then I suggest that you keep whatever gratification you get out of your scary fantasies to yourself and, perhaps, learn something from the grown-ups who know better.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
I see it worked well when the USA dissolved the Baath Party . . .
everything is now peaceful in Iraq.
CC
John2
(2,730 posts)and the Muslim Brotherhood when the US attacked Iraq? Saddam was a secular ruler, so his own Sunni population deserted him. He was oppressive to the Shiites though. So are they claiming the Shiites are oppressing them now, or do they consider them frauds? They didn't get the idea about dissolving the Muslim Brotherhood from the U.S., if people would just study the entire History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Middle Eastern countries. They are a very extremist religious group, vent on making the Middle East a Islamic Caliphate. They hate Israel and Secularist governments. Maybe they got the idea from Assad.s father, Nasser, Sadat, and Saddam Hussein. They were all secular rulers.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Now they are, and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead or maimed by the USA's war-machine.
And Iraq is more unstable now than before "Shock and Awe".
Well done USA . . .
CC
John2
(2,730 posts)Saddam oppressed the majority. Do you really think Iraq was stable? All the U.S. did was switch sides, and empowered the Shia and Kurds, whom they helped Saddam oppress. That was the same case with Saudi Arabia and Kuwaite. Only Saddam turned on them when he wouldn't play along. He attacked Kuwait and was very anti Isarael. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia had to get rid of their Dog. Politics can be a very dirty game, and the U.S. is one of the best at playing it. You are just not thinking on the same plane as I am. All the players in the game have different Interests. When interests support the goals of two or parties, they usually join forces.
The monarchs see Iran and Shia Iraq now as a threat to their influence and power in the region. Suadi Arabia and Qatar are very much afraid of their own population. The US is only interested in protecting israel and controling the resources in the region. They are not concern about Human Rights, all you need to look at is how they treat the poor within their own borders.
There's a long line of examples of people who despised the Ikhwan. They did so for two reasons.
The first and best is that the Ikhwan used violence to try to achieve their vision of social justice. Violence is a bad answer to most questions. It's not a good answer now--unless we like being hobbled by interpreting everything through a historical lens. "The Germans were facists in 1940, so the Germans must still be facists." The world's changed. Change with it.
The second is that the Ikhwan is intrinsically opposed to the idea of Egyptian nationalism, as ordained by the Egyptian 1%ers of yore and encouraged by the West. Egyptian nationalistic views are compatible with the higher education and training that the rabble's "betters," the generals and jurists, have.
This says that Egypt is special. It's people are one, united around a great language that is the only one to be used; an official history aggrandizing the state and the people; a glorious culture that must be defended; and a sound economy that is the first among its peers. It's a nationalism that favors a strong unifying state in which the central government has a strong hand in guiding private enterprise to support the government and in the the state is glorified and must not be criticised. There are elements of Arabism in it, but not sufficient to make Egypt not special. (Try applying this to the US. Go ahead, say it's a grand and glorious thing.) The result of this is that Egypt is pretty much the only Arab state in which tribalism isn't a serious factor. Of course, Egypt's far from being averse to playing the tribalism card, as long as the tribal boundary that serves to stoke calls to "rally the wagons" can be framed in nationalist terms--anti-Israeli propaganda or even anti-Jewish propaganda. Jews were never really Egyptians because they had their own sense of "ummah-hood".
This is also historical, but was true in 2010 and those who are in charge of the coup were important in 2010 and it's never been renounced. It's not like the Ikhwan's violence, which was renounced quite a while ago for very well-stated theoretical reasons (whether or not you believe they were telling the truth, note that the last month gave them ample opportunity to revert).
The Ikhwan come back and say that the ummah is paramount in serving Islam and not al-watan, the state. Egypt rejected pan-Arabism after toying with it for a while. It has to reject Islamism because it would divide groups in society.
The Ikhwan also retort that Islam is the way, and the secular, higher-ed, 1%er views of the Army and judges are misguided. Better to be pure than educated, observant than rich, faithful than chauvinist. They're not Boko Haram, but there are vague similarities. Then again, there are similarities with a lot of Democrats in rejecting the primacy of higher education and nationalism, so it's the extent of the analogy that's important not the mere fact that you can draw the analogy.
BTW, Saddam's "people" didn't abandon him in full. Many saw him as weak when he vanished--don't forget all the "strong horse" talk, so it's not an entirely false claim. But he was sheltered by "his people" for a long time, and he still had a lot of support among the Sunni tribes that he fostered and supported. It was only after some of his supporters got out of hand--infiltrated by Salafists out for shari'a and not Saddam--that they were rejected and the US had to come in and protect and train their men, clearing the field so they could be mop-up crews and peacekeepers.
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)that is now a perpetual bloodbath. Chimpy's plan is working smashingly well.
Igel
(35,309 posts)It explains the unalloyed support that Obama and all Democrats everywhere gave to Qaddhafi, Mubarak, Assad and ben Ali to prevent the bloodshed. Marines being evacuated from Qaddhafi's compound when he finally lost to the better equipped rebel forces, the massive aid given to Mubarak to help shore up his government, HRC's frantic efforts to mediate a compromise that would allow ben Ali to stay in power and the ongoing peace talks urging the rebels in Syria to put down their arms and support the "reformer" Assad.
We're clearly in alternative-reality mode here.
Heck, the only support that was really given to anybody was to the Bahraini king, a Sunni in charge of a bunch of protesting Shi'ites, wedged between Shi'ite areas in Sa'udi Arabia (ahem) and Iran. And for that Obama was soundly berated.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)I'm sure they are in hiding from genocide.
Igel
(35,309 posts)Dissolving the Ikhwan again would do nothing. It's a speech act, like calling the sky orange. The words are meaningless for the most part. Nothing would change for the Copts. What we call a "brotherhood," a nice abstract noun, in Arabic is just "the brothers", emphasizing that they're people and not an abstraction.
What the speech act would do is remove any legal cover for members of the group to associate, for there to be any legal basis for organization.
That would allow the banning of the group, so that members of the group can't associate or organize. Then, if they do, they can be rounded up and jailed or executed; those who aren't rounded up are under threat continual threat of government sanction if they step out of line.
This allows corruption. If you know a former brother and inform on him--rightly or wrongly--he's in hot water. It gives you power over him.
But it also says that if you claim somebody is a brother he's in hot water. It gives weasels power, esp. when coupled with the political thought police that Egypt had and the resurrection of which "liberals" applaud.
The menu at Cafe Egypt has a variety of options. All choices but one come with an obligatory serving of Muslim Brothers--whether as the main course or a side dish. If you fail to order one of those menu options, you receive a complimentary dish of Big Brother "a la democracie". Either way, the waiter will be so '90s as he serves you and says, "Enjoy."
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)(Reuters) - Mahmoud Badr, the activist whose petition campaign helped to bring down Egypt's Islamist president, says the bloodshed that has followed is a high but acceptable price for saving the nation from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Badr's staunch defense of the army, despite the deaths of almost 800 people in the past three days, shows how many Egyptians who consider themselves liberals are sitting back and watching what human rights campaigners say is one setback for democracy and the rule of law after another.
"What Egypt is passing through now is the price, a high price, of getting rid of the Brotherhood's fascist group before it takes over everything and ousts us all," Badr, 28, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
Badr and his two twenty-something co-founders of the "Tamarud-Rebel" movement encouraged millions of Egyptians to take to the streets in protests demanding the overthrow of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/17/us-egypt-protests-tamarud-idUSBRE97G07220130817
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Tamarod is effectively a tool of the military junta.
These guys should go back to sipping coffee, playing on Facebook, and looking cool.
Igel
(35,309 posts)Although it is amusing to have one of them say that the Islamists are "fascists" when if an American said that it would be heatedly contested as a defense of Islam against Islamophobic "true" fascists.
Also amusing when we see liberal support for the Army. What's the Army's traditional stance? Glorify the nation's past, exult in nationalism and defend the state against criticism, assert the supremacy of the state over the rights of its citizens, emphasize national unity through control of official culture and civil society, accept religion as a state-supporting device as long as it's controlled and monitored, applying a strong hand on private enterprise to ensure that it is run for the purposes of the state, and spouting jingoism against external enemies. No, the liberals don't like fascism at all. Not a bit of it.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)
elleng
(130,905 posts)