1. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg

    Coup in Egypt.

    Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by jmhoffer, Jul 4, 2013.

    The Egyptian military has arrested Morsi and thrown out the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a massive blow to the Islamists and moves us closer to moving back towards secular autocrats running the Middle East.

    There is also a significantly high likelihood that this could spark a civil war in Egypt.
     
  2. maskedhero
    Offline

    maskedhero Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2013
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    America
    Morsi was famously ineffective, and the entire thing is like a cruel joke. To see people cheering as the military takes over, again, makes one question if this is simply going to be a cycle of violence, repeated until the country is in ruins. Lebanon was much more ethnically diverse, but serves as a glaring example of what can happen (though obviously, a very different set of circumstances there). I have some friends in Egypt, and hope the best outcome is achieved. I don't see the leadership of the that nation having that capability.
     
  3. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    Your friends should attempt to flee the country. Reports indicate at least a dozen dead in the hours after the coup. More recent reports suggest many, many more, including a gathering of Muslim Brotherhood supporters fired upon for fifteen minutes. There is a high likelihood at this point of a civil war.
     
  4. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,352
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Location:
    Boston
    This should probably be combined the with existing thread on Egypt.

    Military rule is never good, even if it's temporary. A lot of times they lead to dictatorships. Latin America was especially notorious for military dictatorships in the middle of the 20th century.
     
  5. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    When you're talking about dealing with religious extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood, a secular autocrat is infinitely preferable to a false democracy that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood use to gain power.
     
  6. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,352
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Location:
    Boston
    That's debatable. Besides, I wouldn't characterize any of the generals or the senior politicians/judges as secular.
     
  7. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    One can have a secular government and religious leadership. They aren't mutually exclusive. Libertarianism was created by deeply religious people.

    And no, that's not debatable unless you have next to zero knowledge of the Middle East or your knowledge is coloured by absolutely ridiculous propaganda.
     
  8. Juju Bagdasarian
    Offline

    Juju Bagdasarian Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Greece
    Ι agree with hoffer, because people tend to follow the flow in the Arabian Countries without truly thinking what they are doing and what's best, it was wrong to overthrow their monorchy in the first place it only brought discord.
     
  9. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,352
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Location:
    Boston
    You do know that Egypt is a Muslim country, right? Any law must agree with Islamic law. Otherwise it doesn't get passed. At least, that's how it was in previous constitutions. Even with a new constitution, I don't see this changing.

    How did the Muslim Brotherhood win using a "false democracy"?
     
  10. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    This is the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. Mubarak ruled the country via emergency law. The constitution had been suspended since he took power. It was an absolutely meaningless document under Mubarak. Regardless of what the constitution may have said, Mubarak ruled primarily as a secular autocrat, with Shariah Law used in order to help increase his support amongst the religious population.

    It isn't a democracy when there is only one side to vote for and when the side you vote for then becomes a dictatorship. The choice came down to the old regime or the Brotherhood, so the people were forced to choose the Brotherhood. Morsi then cracked down on political dissent and went full speed ahead with a Muslim Brotherhood agenda against the will of the people; which is why this coup occurred.
     
  11. E. C. Scrubb
    Offline

    E. C. Scrubb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Southwest US
    Except that Turkey is a "Muslim country" and they have a secular government. Matter of fact, the current clash there is all about the government becoming too Muslim and the people stepping out against it now. The military, when it gets too bad, will step in, remove the government, and establish a new one that is secular, just like they've done the other what, four times?

    Jordan has independent courts that are not based on Islamic law. Within that system however, is a religious court system whereby issues of "personal status" i.e. marrarige, divorce, child custody, adoption, guardianship, etc is decided. For those that are Muslim, it is decided by Sharia law. For those who are Christian, it is decided by Greek Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or Armenian Catholic councils (depending on the person's religious belief)

    The only place that Sharia law takes precedence over all other religious communities, is in inheritance. Yet, Sharia is administered by the court or council of the religious community the person is a part of (Thus, a Greek Orthodox might be applying Sharia law to inheritance issues in their community). All in all, it's about as fair as what the US was a century ago. Maybe more.
     
  12. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,352
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Location:
    Boston
    Exactly. The part of the constitution dealing with Islamic law was kept in tact. Besides, the entire constitution wasn't suspended, only constitutional rights were, which is not the same as suspending the entire constitution.

    The constitution was suspended two days ago.

    You really think there were only 2 choices? Check again.

    It initially was a Muslim country (by that I mean that its laws were influenced by Islamic law), but it's not anymore. So I wouldn't consider it a Muslim country.
     
  13. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    Just one thing to point out here. Erdogan imprisoned the secular military leadership in Turkey and most analysts I've read think that the military is either well under his control or will fracture and Turkey will go the way of Syria. The days of the secular military preventing Islamist rule in Turkey, however, are long gone.
     
  14. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    It was used for political purposes, not actively followed. Tourists aren't allowed to dress in bikinis under Shariah law, yet they did this quite regularly on Egypt's beaches prior to Mubarak being overthrown.

    Relevance?

    Effectively, there were only two choices. The 'transition' to 'democracy' happened so quickly that there was no time for an independent, secular party to rise to power. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists (which are nearly identical to the Muslim Brotherhood) were the only two groups other than Mubarak's former regime that held any grassroots power. The people didn't want to vote for Mubarak's former strongmen, so they handed the country to the Islamists who then worked towards eliminating democracy. It is only democracy if it stays democratic!

    Your ignorance and inability to separate propaganda from reality makes it very difficult to have a conversation with you.
     
  15. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,352
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Location:
    Boston
    Maybe it wasn't as strict as it is in Saudi Arabia, but many of the laws do stem from Islamic law (they banned newspapers considered insulting to Islam, as one example). Of course, it all depends on how the government interprets Sharia law, but the influence is certainly there.

    I guess making money beats enforcing Sharia law.

    Like I said, there's a difference between suspending the constitution and suspending constitutional rights. What happened two days ago was the entire constitution was suspended. As a result, the legislature has been dissolved. Suspending constitutional rights doesn't have the same effect.

    Resorting to name calling, huh? Turkey is a secular nation (at least in theory). Take a look at their 1982 constitution.
     
  16. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    No, that one is a whack-a-doodle conspiracy, the US One World Government conspiracy is behind it thread. This thread has the potential to be a normal discussion.

    [reads rest of thread]

    Never mind.
     
  17. jmhoffer
    Offline

    jmhoffer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Winterpeg
    Again, this is political expediency and was used to placate the population. There is a difference between following Sharia Law and political expediency.

    I'd say, "so you get it", but I somehow doubt you do.

    Which is irrelevant. Under Mubarak, the constitution was followed when it was convenient or politically expedient. Effectively, it may as well not have existed and was a guideline rather than law.

    Name calling would be calling you an 'ignoramous' and 'puppet'. I merely made observations of your knowledge.
     
  18. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,352
    Likes Received:
    2,896
    Location:
    Boston
    It doesn't matter why it was used. What matters is that it was used.

    Honestly, it's not a matter of "getting it" and "not getting it" (as in, not black and white). There are many complications, one of which involves how Sharia law is interpreted. Different governments have different interpretations. I'll leave it at that.

    That's not completely true. Thanks to this thread, I actually went through the 1971 Constitution of Egypt. Their constitution has specific rules about the economy and taxes, for example, that I don't think were ever violated. So I can agree that the entire constitution wasn't followed by Mubarak, but I don't agree that he completely suspended the constitution, which is an important distinction. Also, the constitution states that the President has the right to declare emergency law (which can be extended as long as the Assembly agrees to it), so I could argue that even though he declared emergency law, he was still following the constitution.
     

Share This Page