Arab Spring, Round 2

[Crazy_Ivan80]

"but it did not abolish democracy or drive the opposition underground"

Only because it was stopped before it cneould do these things. Things might have gone better if someone had done that in 1933 in Germany

Well Cohen's no MB apologist.
But what's the basis for that? They were in power for about eighteen months. We can look at their record, and had they abolished democracy by the next election they could have, as we've seen, been removed.

The Nazi comparison is interesting precisely because it shows how speedily and ruthlessly totalitarian states act in establishing and consolidating their power. Compare MB Egypt eighteen months in with Germany in June 1934. As I say this is the second wing of conspiracy thinking by the Egyptian elite and anti-MBers. The facts suggest they either weren't despots in waiting or they were too incompetent to pull it off. To my mind neither justifies a coup.

Similarly it would be nice if Western liberals and human rights activists showed an ounce of the outrage over this far more brutal repression that they did over Turkey.

Meanwhile around 40 brothers have died in prison during an 'attempted escape'. Sisi's also spoke again. The overwhelming response seems a mixture of fear and admiration for his charisma and lots more Nasser comparisons.

the comparison is that the MB/Morsi blundered, dithered and retreated. Luckily. They didn't manage to establish their dictatorship (politically at least, given their influence on the Streets most of their rule is already there) not for a lack of trying but for an abundance of failing.
and why should western liberals anyone show compassion to a group that -like I said- gets terrorists (the Hatsjepsut-monument massacre, 60+ dead iirc) out of jail and makes them governors? Or goes on a rampage against christians or anyone that doesn't follow their particular fairytale.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, but Hitler stopped the Reds.

More like empowered them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany

That's the Allies at work, not Hitler.

I wonder what could have brought such a diverse group of governments together to form the allies and then invade German territory?

[Neil]

Yeah, but Hitler stopped the Reds.

More like empowered them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany

That's the Allies at work, not Hitler.

I wonder what could have brought such a diverse group of governments together to form the allies and then invade German territory?

All sorts of things.  After all, the Soviets were coming west at some point no matter what.

[Sheilbh]

the comparison is that the MB/Morsi blundered, dithered and retreated. Luckily. They didn't manage to establish their dictatorship (politically at least, given their influence on the Streets most of their rule is already there) not for a lack of trying but for an abundance of failing.

But where's the evidence they were going to institute a dictatorship or that they could? I mean you say not for want of trying but what did they actually do?

They won 25% of the vote in the first round Presidential elections (down from almost 40% in the parliamentary elections a year before). They won the Presidential run-off against a former Mubarak PM. Within 18 months their popularity had declined enormously. They never had much of a mandate and they frittered it away.

I don't think the MB support democracy in principal and long-term I think they would be a problem. But they weren't anywhere near getting rid of it and were eroding their support through their incompetence. There were meant to be parliamentary later this year - there was no indications that the MB were about to cancel or disrupt them. In part I think the same things that will make them fiercely difficult to 'dissolve' made them incompetent at government.

They weren't good for Egypt, but I think a coup is worse. Letting them fail, democratically would've been better. Had they acted against future elections there's no reason to think the street and army wouldn't have been able to overthrow them anyway.

and why should western liberals anyone show compassion to a group that -like I said- gets terrorists (the Hatsjepsut-monument massacre, 60+ dead iirc) out of jail and makes them governors? Or goes on a rampage against christians or anyone that doesn't follow their particular fairytale.

It's not about compassion, but consistency and credibility. Right now I think many western liberals or human rights groups have pissed their credibility away.

They went apeshit over an elected Islamist government using mostly non-lethal force to remove protesters. Which was right the police were brutal and there's problems in Turkeys.

An army kills over 600 people in a sit-in (not, as Egyptian state TV calls it, an 'armed sit-in' and without the chemical weapons they alleged) and arrest hundreds of people for their political views and there's barely a whimper.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, but Hitler stopped the Reds.

More like empowered them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany

That's the Allies at work, not Hitler.

I wonder what could have brought such a diverse group of governments together to form the allies and then invade German territory?

I suppose we can credit Hitler with the current German government.  Hitler's not so bad after all!

[Razgovory]

the comparison is that the MB/Morsi blundered, dithered and retreated. Luckily. They didn't manage to establish their dictatorship (politically at least, given their influence on the Streets most of their rule is already there) not for a lack of trying but for an abundance of failing.

But where's the evidence they were going to institute a dictatorship or that they could? I mean you say not for want of trying but what did they actually do?

They won 25% of the vote in the first round Presidential elections (down from almost 40% in the parliamentary elections a year before). They won the Presidential run-off against a former Mubarak PM. Within 18 months their popularity had declined enormously. They never had much of a mandate and they frittered it away.

I don't think the MB support democracy in principal and long-term I think they would be a problem. But they weren't anywhere near getting rid of it and were eroding their support through their incompetence. There were meant to be parliamentary later this year - there was no indications that the MB were about to cancel or disrupt them. In part I think the same things that will make them fiercely difficult to 'dissolve' made them incompetent at government.

They weren't good for Egypt, but I think a coup is worse. Letting them fail, democratically would've been better. Had they acted against future elections there's no reason to think the street and army wouldn't have been able to overthrow them anyway.

and why should western liberals anyone show compassion to a group that -like I said- gets terrorists (the Hatsjepsut-monument massacre, 60+ dead iirc) out of jail and makes them governors? Or goes on a rampage against christians or anyone that doesn't follow their particular fairytale.

It's not about compassion, but consistency and credibility. Right now I think many western liberals or human rights groups have pissed their credibility away.

They went apeshit over an elected Islamist government using mostly non-lethal force to remove protesters. Which was right the police were brutal and there's problems in Turkeys.

An army kills over 600 people in a sit-in (not, as Egyptian state TV calls it, an 'armed sit-in' and without the chemical weapons they alleged) and arrest hundreds of people for their political views and there's barely a whimper.

Yeah, I noticed that myself.  We had a big thread and everyone bitching about the heavy handed goverment tactics in Turkey.  A lot of people here and around the world would prefer a dictatorship to an Islamist government.

[Admiral Yi]

Generally agree with you Shelf, but I have seen footage of at least one Brother carrying and firing an AK.  And no one that I'm aware of seems to have disputed the dead cops.

[Sheilbh]

Generally agree with you Shelf, but I have seen footage of at least one Brother carrying and firing an AK.  And no one that I'm aware of seems to have disputed the dead cops.

Yeah and there have been more and more attacks on the Copts, I think from the Brothers. It doesn't seem anywhere near as widespread as the government or their supporters are alleging though and certainly not enough to justify this level of force.

But with that I generally wait for the Western media to pick up on them. A number of ones that I've seen Egyptians sharing have since been wildly debunked as photoshopped.

Edit: Also to my knowledge none of that's been associated with the main protest in Rabaa. From what I know there's no suggestion that that really is an 'armed camp'.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah and there have been more and more attacks on the Copts, I think from the Brothers. It doesn't seem anywhere near as widespread as the government or their supporters are alleging though and certainly not enough to justify this level of force.

43 dead cops seems to me to be vindication of the level of force.

[Sheilbh]

What tanks on the street, use of live ammunition and 700 citizens dead?

[Admiral Yi]

What tanks on the street, use of live ammunition and 700 citizens dead?

Given that the Brotherhood had enough firepower to cap 43 cops, I think live ammunition is within the Pale.

[Sheilbh]

Okay. I disagree, but then I'm very dubious about the army on the streets at all for crowd-control or of the police having access to live ammunition.

[alfred russel]

It's not about compassion, but consistency and credibility. Right now I think many western liberals or human rights groups have pissed their credibility away.

They went apeshit over an elected Islamist government using mostly non-lethal force to remove protesters. Which was right the police were brutal and there's problems in Turkeys.

An army kills over 600 people in a sit-in (not, as Egyptian state TV calls it, an 'armed sit-in' and without the chemical weapons they alleged) and arrest hundreds of people for their political views and there's barely a whimper.

I don't agree at all.

I can't speak for all western liberals, but for many people I think democracy is a means to an end, and the ultimate end is a tolerant, secular society with a government that protects human rights, promotes a stable economic environment, and provides for the general public welfare (education, health care, social welfare, etc).

The Muslim Brotherhood may have been elected, but the mass movement has elements that are prone to do things like attack churches when they don't get their way. They seem to have some nasty and ignorant people in their base. I don't think any credibility is undermined by western liberals not shaking their fists and insisting the Muslim Brotherhood be put back in charge.

None of this matters though. It isn't as though Western Liberal opinions make so much difference in Egypt, or that if only there was a bit more consistency Egyptians would do what we want.

[Admiral Yi]

Okay. I disagree, but then I'm very dubious about the army on the streets at all for crowd-control or of the police having access to live ammunition.

Are you reading what you're writing?  You want them to disarm people using non-violent tactics?  A couple choruses of kumbaiya and the Brotherhood would throw down their weapons and disperse?

[citizen k]

... the ultimate end is a tolerant, secular society with a government that protects human rights, promotes a stable economic environment, and provides for the general public welfare (education, health care, social welfare, etc).

And if a dictatorship or military junta does that, you're all for it.