Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood calls for 'day of rage'

[dipsydoodle]

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: France 24

Egypt braced on Friday for more unrest, with the Muslim Brotherhood planning a protest march after a bloody crackdown on its supporters. The country’s military-backed government warned that it is prepared to use force again.

>

“After the blows and arrests and killings that we are facing, emotions are too high to be guided by anyone,” said Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El-Haddad.

A statement from the Brotherhood called for a nationwide “march of anger” by millions of supporters on Friday after noon prayers.

“Despite the pain and sorrow over the loss of our martyrs, the latest coup makers’ crime has increased our determination to end them,” it said.

Read more: http://www.france24.com/en/20130716-egypt-braces-for-more-clashes-as-muslim-brotherhood-prepares-to-march?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=reseaux_sociaux&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20130716_egypt_braces_for_more_clashes_as

---

Egypt is braced for more violence on Friday, with both pro- and anti-Morsi supporters planning to march through cities in several provinces after midday prayers – and the interior ministry ominously vowing to use live ammunition to defend themselves and state buildings.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/egypt-violence-army-live-ammunition

[MADem]

1. We're mad at the government, so let's kill some Coptic Christians and burn their churches!

What a mess.

I hope they can tamp this shit down, and soon.

[jessie04]

2. They just wont end the cycle of violence.

I pity the copts and any progressive women....they should hide.

[another_liberal]

4. "Cycle of violence?"

Maybe so, but only one side of the cycle has attack helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns and all the nation-wide apparatus of police forces and a defense department, fully funded by our tax dollars.

[branford]

8. Do you want the Muslim Brotherhood to also have American heavy weapons and vehicles?

It's easy to criticize, but I've seen few proposals to actually solve the mess in Egypt.

Our choice is between military rule or the Muslim Brotherhood. There is no democratic, human rights supporting, peaceful third group for us to support.

Quite frankly, from a purely clinical view, I'd much rather have the military than Islamic fundamentalists, particularly seeing how the Muslim Brotherhood was forming anti-democratic institutions and cementing their unchallenged rule while they were in power. The coup did not come from nowhere and is arguably supported by a majority of Egyptians.

I would not be surprised if this devolved into a bloody civil war. That will not be be good for anyone - Egyptians, American, or stability in the entire region already beset by other conflicts.

[The Stranger]

15. You're quick to talk about "democratic" but the fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate was

elected in a democratic election.

Then the military removed him from power after one year of his four-year term.

So I don't think you have quite grasped the issue here.

[leftynyc]

19. It's like when the Gazans voted

in Hamas. Just because we support elections doesn't mean we have to support whoever it is that gets voted in. I also would pick a military rule before a theocratic one (given a choice). So yes, we have grasped the issue - the choice is between a military dictatorship or a theocratic one. Both suck.

[The Stranger]

26. Wait a minute. You're illustrating the problem.

If you don't support the elected choice, then by definition you aren't supporting democracy.

That's the whole problem with democracy. The people voting may not like who you like.

At least have the maturity to recognize this for what it is, rather than to pretend to support democracy when you really don't at all.

[leftynyc]

28. That's laughable

Hitler was voted in democratically. Do you mean to say that means I have to support nazis in order to say I support elections?

[The Stranger]

42. NOW you are beginning to grasp the dilemma.

You are doing very well. You now realize that if you support elections, then you are left with the result.

If you supported elections in Nazi Germany -- assuming that the system there was not completely slanted and was somehow held democratically (which I doubt) -- then you would have to accept the result.

If you only support elections some of the time, then you are changing your position from true support of elections.

The logic is inescapable.

But NOW you are beginning to grasp the dilemma.

[leftynyc]

43. You're making a ridiculous argument

and don't seem to realize it. And now it's time to start my weekend.

[JVS]

51. The Weimar republic did have legitimate elections and the election of November 1932...

which resulted in Hitler becoming Chancellor is generally considered to be a clean election. There was another election in March of 1933 (Hitler had already become Chancellor on Jan 30th) in which the Nazis won more seats in the Reichstag, but this election was not clean. Subsequently the ruling Nazi-DNVP coalition was able to pass the "enabling act" by 2/3 because only the Communists and the Social Democrats opposed it and Hitler had already arrested all the Communist representatives.

But one of the underpinning problems of the Weimar republic is that most of the parties involved did not support the continued existence of the parliamentary system. And this isn't just because of the parties' leaderships. The people themselves were not particularly committed to the republic and the right wanted a return to an authoritarian system more along the lines of the Empire while many on the left wanted a soviet system of government.

[The Stranger]

100. Interesting.

It would appear that a failure to commit to the system of democracy put in place is one of the causative factors of fascism itself.

[John2]

62. You are the person

missing the point. Replace Egypt with the United States. How far do you think you will get if the most populist Christian Group in America establish their rule? How fast do you think we will have a Civil War on them? The problem is using religion in Politics. It restricts freedom of choice. Why don you study philosphy and Political history? Maybe you will understand the difference.

[The Stranger]

99. Actually, I think you and I agree, for the most part.

Taking your example, if the most populist Christian group in America somehow usurped authority, then there is a system of checks and balances in place that would come into play to stop and/or reverse their power play.

Part of that would be the First Amendment prohibition of the government establishing religion.

I think my point about the Egyptian election is a bit more subtle, though. I'm not agreeing with the outcome of the election or even which party won (or should have won).

I'm simply pointing out that, if you support elections, you support elections. You don't get to claim that you support them only to change your mind when the candidate elected is not the one you like.

[JVS]

52. You can't be said to meaningfully support elections if you would have their results ignored.

[leftynyc]

82. Nobody is talking about ignoring results

At least I'm not. I'm saying our actions will be based on who is in power. Elections have consequences that spread further than just what happens in that particular country. We don't have to support the winners with kind words or aid and if our actions wind up having an effect on their policy, I have no problem with that.

[azurnoir]

50. How many times must you be told before you stop spreading this fertilizer?

the people of Gaza did not vote Hamas in as their rulers Hamas took over Gaza via a coup just the same as Egyptian army is taking over Egypt via a coup.

The pro-Fatah view is, that the battle was a plain military coup by Hamas. The pro-Hamas view is, that the US drew up a plan to arm Fatah cadres with the aim of forcefully removing Hamas from power in Gaza. According to the pro-Hamas view, Fatah fighters, led by strongman Mohammed Dahlan with logistical support from the US Central Intelligence Agency, were planning to carry out a bloody coup against Hamas.[22] Then, Hamas pre-emptively took control over Gaza.

In an April 2008 article in Vanity Fair magazine, the journalist David Rose published confidential documents, apparently originating from the US State Department, which would prove that the United States collaborated with the Palestinian Authority and Israel to attempt the violent overthrow of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and that Hamas pre-empted the coup. The documents suggest that a government with Hamas should meet the demands of the Middle East Quartet, otherwise President Mahmoud Abbas should declare a state of emergency, which effectively would dissolve of the current unity government or the government should collapse by other means.[23][24] Rose quotes former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser David Wurmser, accusing the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen”[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_%282007%29

I find the down the memory hole tactics engaged in by some here to be an almost deliberate insult to the intelligence of readers
More over your contention that the people of Gaza voted in Hamas as their leaders is roughly equivelent to saying that the US voted the Rublicans in as our leader because they have a majority in the House, when indeed our Leader is a member of the Democratic party

[branford]

60. Deceptive, at best.

In 2006, the the Palestinians, from both the West Bank and Gaza, held a legislative election. Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45, providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government on their own. According to your own link, in June 2007 Hamas fighters then took control of the Gaza Strip and removed Fatah officials. There has not been an election in either territory since the Hamas coup.

So, to recap, Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, won a democratic victory among the Palestinians, instituted a coup wherein they took absolute control of Gaza, and they have not permitted any subsequent election to challenge their theocratic rule, nor permitted anything resembling democratic institutions or recognized human rights.

It sounds awfully like how the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected in Egypt, but was similarly using their victory to unilaterally draft a constitution and limit opposition and judicial review to ensure their continued, theocratic, unchallenged hegemony. At least the military in Egypt may restore the free and democratic ideals of the revolution. However, too bad for those Palestinians.

[azurnoir]

61. so you must also believe that the GOP rules the US?

because that would be the equivalent to what you describe, there was no deception save claims that the people of Gaza elected Hamas to lead them, that is quite untrue

[branford]

63. The last I checked, the Republicans consistently engage in elections; win some and lose some.

The managed to lose the last two presidential elections, yet somehow managed not to institute a coup against Obama, militarily seize sovereign American territory, and prevent these Americans from ever challenging their rule by prohibiting subsequent elections. Conversely, although the Republicans control the House, neither President Obama nor the Democratically controlled Senate dissolved Congress and instituted permanent one party rule.

We manage these herculean democratic miracles every couple of years, as do most other free and democratic societies.

As to our claims about Gaza:

Hamas was democratically elected and received majority control of the entire Palestinian legislature. I think even you admit that Gaza certainly was included in Palestinian territories in 2006 and today. More importantly, the people of Gaza overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in the 2006 election.

True democratic rule was apparently unacceptable to both Hamas and Fatah, who subsequently seized and divided Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, and neither has permitted new elections, despite the fact that elections have been long overdue according to Palestinian law.

[azurnoir]

65. the Republican does not hold the leadership position in the US

now you can keep on attempting to obfuscate or spin the truth of what happened during the Palestinian elections but Fatah won much like the Democratic party won the leadership position

[branford]

66. What??? I think you need to have a chat with Speaker of the House John Boehner.

More importantly, are you really claiming that Palestinians in either Gaza or the West Bank are living under anything resembling a functioning democracy?

And before you even raise the issue, Israel has not stopped the Palestinians from holding new elections. Hamas completely controls Gaza and could have election at their leisure. I wouldn't recommend holding your breadth. Israel would also love elections in the West Bank, as Abbas would likely lose and the only apparent Palestinian leader who can both deal with the West and negotiate with Israel would be gone, along with pressure to continue negotiations.

[azurnoir]

76. oh the other boot has dropped

the reason there have been Palestinian elections is the 2007 coup, they would only be held in the West Bank, Hamas does not want election because it is they who would most likely lose, would Fatah win, quite possibly and perhaps Abbas would remain in power

[branford]

78. Anything is possible, I'm just waiting for any new election in the territories.

It does not matter if it is in Gaza, the West Bank, or as before, the joint territories. I don't believe either Hamas or Fatah know what will happen, and as a result, neither will risk something so pedestrian and messy as democracy.

Israel appears to be the only polity in the region than manages, quite frequently, to have both democratic elections and peaceful transitions of power.

As an aside, I do not know how anyone can expect a resolution of the Israeli / Palestinian dispute while the Palestinians speak with two voices, neither of them having any democratic credibility.

[oberliner]

81. Have you read this Vanity Fair article?

It might change your mind what went on in 2007.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

[azurnoir]

86. read it long ago

do you accept it as fact, these days?

[oberliner]

87. Glad to hear you think its BS

I do too.

[azurnoir]

88. I didn't say that did I ?

I asked if you did? However if you do not believe it why did you post it?

It doesn't change the fact that Hamas took over Gaza by force though does it, it simply fleshes out the circumstances and that the US may well have had a hand in it

[oberliner]

90. I thought it might change your mind

It had a big impact on a lot of people's perception on the situation.

I have seen that article cited in order to make the point that there was not really a Hamas coup but rather an attempted Fatah coup that Hamas prevented.

Since you have been writing that there was a Hamas coup, I wasn't sure that you had read the article - and if you had, what your take was on its conclusions.

[azurnoir]

91. as I just said regardless of the circumstances there was a Hamas coup

as Hamas was not in charge of Gaza at the time

[oberliner]

92. What are you talking about?

Hamas had just won the legislative elections in a landslide and Haniyeh was named Prime Minister.

He was sworn in as PM in 2006.

It wasn't until June of 2007 that Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government of Haniyeh, declared a state of emergency, and appointed Salam Fayyad in his place.

[azurnoir]

93. lol nice try but you give it away in one statement

if indeed Haniyeh was the recognized PM of the Palestinian Authority how did Abbas dissolve the government? Abbas was the recognized leader of the PLO and the PA

tell us exactly what are attempting to justify here

[oberliner]

97. These are undisputed facts

Go check Wikipedia.

Not attempting to justify anything.

[azurnoir]

98. if Haniyeh had been the sole leader of the Palestinians Abbas would not have been able to unseat him

quite so easily now of course you did not say that, but someone reading your comment would most likely get that impression however IMO you depend once again on people not understanding Palestinian politics and governmental positions, not unusual though

BTW that Hamas was elected to be the leader of Gaza (therefore the Gazans deserve what they get) is fertilizer that has been being spread as thickly as possible especially since Operation Pillar of Cloud last November

[leftynyc]

83. How many times are you

going to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to ignore a unpleasant truth.

[azurnoir]

85. no twisting involved on my part just simple history, facts, stuff like that :)

[branford]

20. I beg to differ. As I see it, there are two primary issues:

Last edited Fri Aug 16, 2013, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

What is in the best interest of the Egyptian people and what is best for America and the wider region.

Despite what Bush '43 might have you believe, a democratic election does not equal democratic institutions, protection of human rights, nor the guarantee of a subsequent free and fair election. The Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected, but that is not where the analysis necessarily ends. The MB unilaterally began to alter the Egyptian constitution and oppress the opposition. In addition to failing to address Egypt's immediate economic concerns, they appear to have been setting themselves up for an unchallenged, indefinite rule. At the risk of raising the specter of Goodwin's Law, the Germans democratically elected Hitler, and that certainly wasn't in the interest of Germans or anyone else. The military intervention was certainly not sudden or unexpected. Most importantly, a very large number of Egyptians, likely a solid majority, support the military. What we are currently witnessing is not a simple coup, but likely the beginnings of a civil war.

I would also like to note that my heart does not bleed for the MB. They aren't Quakers peacefully fighting to end discrimination or for women's suffrage. The MB has a very long and infamous history of using violence, intimidation and terrorism to achieve their goals. For instance, I cannot conceive of any possible connection between burning down over 50 Coptic churches with opposing military rule, other than intimidation and religious intolerance. I would be very careful romanticizing the MB during these troubles.

The other issue is simple realpolitik - what is good for the USA and the region. We have a long, relatively productive working relationship with the Egyptian military. The army has also historically been committed to peace and stability in the region, maintaining the treaty with Israel and ensuring secular rights for the Egyptian people. The MB is the exact opposite. I'm perfectly aware that the military are hardly democratic humanitarians, but they are a far more stabilizing force in the middle-east and serve the economic and politcal interests of our country and its allies. Of course, that does not mean we need not oppose a violent crackdown. We can seek to moderate the military and still support them over the MB, particularly if the army is supported by a majority of Egyptians.

Quite frankly, as the MB and the military are both intolerant, violent and undemocratic, I wish a pox on both their houses. Nevertheless, the military is unquestionably the party to back in Egypt, while we try to somewhat mitigate their excesses.

[tazzersgoldenangel]

23. Well siad!

Well said indeed! You've written what I see as the single best analysis of the situation to date. I could NOT agree with you more!

[The Stranger]

27. Actually, that is a different issue.

But I think you and I agree on this. The institutions and laws of the country must outlast the person or persons elected. So, in other words, the elected leader cannot do away with voting and become an autocrat -- at least, that would not be democracy.

But here is the other problem. For the institutions and laws of the country to outlast the person or persons elected, they are supposed to be able to serve out their term, the term for which they were democratically elected.

That wasn't done here.

The only way to establish the institutions is by having elections. Eventually, the hope is, the institutions will be respected and take root. Then people will stop voting for their own religious group and look to the qualities of how the person elected actually served the people and the country.

[branford]

34. Egypt, and much of the middle east and arab world, has little experience with democratic government.

We ultimately agree about the ends that need to be achieved for true democratic government. However, we are both liberal democrats from a country with a long history of such such government. Some of our country's worst and most shameful conduct pales in comparison to what often occurs daily in this region. I'm therefore not confident that a peaceful transition to real first-world democracy will be either swift or painless. I'm certainly not stating that the people in the region are not capable, but a such a sea change in thinking will be difficult.

I also do not necessarily believe that we needed to support Morsi for his full term. If he was setting Egypt up for the unchallenged, theocratic rule by the MB, was it not better to support the military's termination of such designs before they advanced much further? A few aborted attempts at democracy might be the price Egyptians have to pay to fully realize the true democratic aspiration of their revolution.

[The Stranger]

41. Presumably, there would be something other than the presidency. Morsi was only one person

holding one elected office. If he were trying to set up theocratic rule, then there would be other offices of the government, other branches of the government -- some system of checks and balances -- to prevent this.

The idea is that you would not have to resort to violence and prematurely end the president's term. There would be something analogous to the Supreme Court and Congress to counterbalance any attempt to seize power unchecked.

As far as how democracy comes to the region, it is either going to happen now or later. There is simply no other alternative. Installing various dictators in the region to keep a lid on things has blown up in the collective Western face too many times now.

That process itself has brought about terrorism and Muslim fundamentalism.

[branford]

44. Unfortunately, the only checks and balances that Egypt currently has is the military.

Morsi was not ruling under a democratic constitution, he was the one charged with establishing a constitution.

After his election, Morsi installed his supporters to all key posts, the MB dictated the terms of the new constitution and even declared that the Egyptian courts lacked authority to overturn his edicts. The only check on Morsi establishing a permanent theocratic rule under the MB was the military. Further, the army warned him time and time again about his totalitarian overreach, but to no avail. The military intervention was therefore entirely expected and supported by an arguable majority of the population. If the military had not acted as it did, Egypt might have ended up as the Sunni version of Iran.

I do not like military rule, but it is far preferable to the alternative at this juncture. The American priority now should be to limit the violence, attempt to prevent a civil war, and use our significant influence with the military to ensure they keep their promise to hold free elections in the near future.

[The Stranger]

47. Why were they having an election for office when there was no office yet established?

The constitution would establish the offices for which to hold elections.

[branford]

48. Exactly . . .

The beginnings of any attempts at true democracy involve many temporary, limited or just plain "play it by ear" steps in order to establish a working government.

Morsi was democratically elected, but one of his primary responsibilities was to establish a permanent constitution and a functioning democratic government. As to his success in this endeavor, see my many other comments . . .

[PSPS]

77. Morsi was removed by a popular uprising

The Egyptian military holds a unique role in Egyptian society, much different than here in the US. When the people saw what Morsi was doing (beginning very shortly after he took office,) they had enough and he was removed by the military which, by virtue of its unique role in their society, reflects the will of the people, at least in this case. What we are seeing now is the theocratic movement that backs Morsi's shenanigans trying to foist their reactionary will on the country and, so far, they haven't prevailed.

Imagine a scenario where some GOP nutjob manages to get himself into office here in the US, disbands congress (Morsi disbanded parliament) and decides that the country will now follow "biblical law" (Morsi wanted to adopt "Shria Law.&quot What would be the better course of action? Endure four years of abuse and damage while waiting for another election or force the charlatan from office? Fortunately for Egypt, they had the will and means to do the latter.

As someone else pointed out, Morsi's supporters could put an end to their own bloodshed immediately. But you usually don't get rational actions from religious fanatics.

[JVS]

79. "the military which, by virtue of its unique role in their society, reflects the will of the people"

[The Stranger]

101. But you have to understand that you have set a dangerous precedent.

The next person may not be trying to establish sharia law. He may do something otherwise unpopular. Yet, instead of being able to implement the policy (again, assuming he is not changing the fundamental institutions of the government itself), he was ousted by a popular uprising. The result is chaos -- not democracy.

There has to be some continuity for democracy to mean anything.

In the U.S., some have almost crossed the line into seeking a "popular uprising" to remove a democratically elected President who has (for the most part) not done anything to harm the system itself.

Instead of organizing and campaigning within the system for a candidate to seek the Presidency at the end of the current President's term, they want defeat the system itself.

[tabasco]

96. And as soon as he was elected, his group began

dismantling the democracy. That's the part you don't seem to grasp.

[PaulKersey]

22. agree

I'd take the military over the islamists.

[another_liberal]

25. Anyone who can support . . .

The fact is, my friend, that anyone who can voice support for the Egyptian military after what they have done and caused to be done this week must have a World view so one-sided as to be nearly blind. I won't bother to go into the heartlessness and coldness such a stance implies, such a person would not be able to grasp what I was trying to say to them anyway.

(sigh)

[another_liberal]

33. The generals who staged this coup should be arrested and tried for mass murder.

President Morsi should be reinstated as Egypt's President, with the condition that he call for new elections for early 2014. Representatives of all factions (except the generals, of course) should be brought together to draft a new national Constitution which includes a universally applicable Bill of Rights, and which places the nation's military firmly and totally under civilian control.

I think that would solve most of country's worst problems.

[branford]

38. And everyone will join hands under the many rainbows while they pet the unicorns.

Who (and how), exactly, will ensure the sanctity of these new elections, no less guaranty that their constitution includes this perfect bill of rights that you demand or, more importantly, that the Muslim Brotherhood will not again attempt to usurp the democratic process after Morsi is reinstated? You heart is in the right place, but you are naive as to the history, motivations and broken promises of the MB, the limitations imposed by the religion and politics of the region, as well as the human rights of the very many Egyptians that support the military.

We do not live in a perfect world, and Egypt is not an academic exercise. We have two choices in Egypt, the military or the MB, and they both are terrible. The question is which the is lesser of the two evils.

Also, I resent the implication that I'm some heartless bastard who does not care about the bloodshed in Egypt. That is patently untrue. I do not "support" the Egyptian military, they are violent and intolerant. However, I readily acknowledge that in light of both the Muslim Brotherhood's historically abhorrent and violent behavior and astoundingly poor and undemocratic leadership, that the Egyptian people and American interests are better served with the "lesser evil" of the military.

Until the Quakers are a dominant political force in Egypt, I stand by my analysis.

[another_liberal]

69. Your flippancy is completely out of place . . .

And especially so in regard to the thousands of human beings murdered on Egypt's streets this week, murdered by a group of men who must be made to pay for their crimes.

[branford]

71. My purported "flippancy" aside, how would you address the other points in comment?

Also, should the MB, including Morsi, be been held accountable for their own widespread violence, particularly against the Coptic Christians who are rapidly becoming an endangered species in Egypt?

[another_liberal]

74. Equating the generals crimes . . .

I find it hard to believe you are equating the generals' crimes with anything which happened under Morsi's Presidency, that is just amazing!

As to what is happening now to Egypt's Christians, that is the responsibility of the coup leaders. Their brutalities and murders have caused that reciprocal violence to happen.

Yes, we have, "Two choices in Egypt." Either we support the military butchers or we support democracy.

Whether you are truly as heartless as your comments suggest is not for me to judge. I only know what you post for me to read, and I have already offered my take on that.

[branford]

75. Hold on!

Are you really stating that the Muslim Brotherhood bears no responsibility for the violence they are perpetrating on the Coptic Christians, actions which began while Morsi was still in office? If so, wow!

I also categorically reject the notion that to support democracy in Egypt we must support the Muslim Brotherhood, and therein lies our fundamental dispute.

Although I respect the fact that you want the violence to end, excusing or ignoring the violence and intolerance of the MB is naive and will ultimately delay any peaceful resolution. The MB are most certainly not all peaceful victims.

[another_liberal]

80. Reject all you want.

There is no honest way to equate what is happening now in Egypt with what took place under President Morsi. To say so is to dismiss facts in an effort aimed at rewriting history.

[another_liberal]

3. It is interesting to note . . .

All of the armored vehicles pictured in the photo you include are of American design and manufacture. They weren't just paid for by our taxes, they were made by our defense industries.

We have nearly as much blood on our hands as do the Egyptian generals.

There is a good video on your topic available here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/201381522364486906.html

[dipsydoodle]

7. Its also interesting to note

that the Brotherhood protestors are being joined by others who don't support the Brotherhood but oppose the Military.

"People writing down their names on their forearms in case they get shot. #Egypt http://t.co/Jpfj2BD9jv" see http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-day-iof-rage-live

[Igel]

13. I was waiting for this observation.

Rather like the claims made about Israel.

I was fairly sure, though, that the reporting about bulldozers and the image of a blood-drenched bulldozer would have prompted this, however. Maybe it did and I missed it. DU's various boards move at uneven rates, with Good Reads and news moving glacially slow while the chat-board that General Discussion's become moving quickly.

[another_liberal]

24. Do you have a point?

Or are you just seconding mine?

[dipsydoodle]

5. BBC live text here

with video : some live some recorded. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23725086

nb BBC are using GMT : not BST.

And Guardian live here :

12.48 BST

True death toll.

Yesterday we reported how the bodies of those killed on Wednesday were not being admitted by state morgues and therefore not added to official deaths tolls.

Here's another witness to the practice, Channel 4 News reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy who tweets:

Krishnan Guru-Murthy ✔ @krishgm

Just saw body being turned away by the morgue because no family accompanying. Will not show in official death toll #egypt #c4news
12:38 PM - 16 Aug 2013

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-day-iof-rage-live

[another_liberal]

6. Several reports have quoted family members of those killed . . .

Several reports have quoted family members of those killed as saying that they could not even get permits to bury their dead, unless they agreed to list the cause of death as "suicide."

[The Magistrate]

10. Jury To The Contrary, Sir, That Post Is Flat Bigotry, And You Know It as Well As I Do

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

over the top bigotry, needs to go

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Aug 16, 2013, 08:03 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: religious nuts, muslims and christians etc need to go

Thank you.

[warrant46]

14. Strange how this site has changed over the years

As an elected official I didn't post for years now that I am retired and come here more often I am amazed at the changes in humanist outlook and respect for others.

[The Stranger]

16. Holy fuck.

I alerted it too and couldn't believe I actually had to send an alert.

Only to find that the "jury" ruled in favor of leaving this racist shit on the board here.

Holy fuck.

I can't believe this "jury" shit.

[Blue_Tires]

36. I gave up on alerting months ago...

way too much bullshit is allowed to stand...

[Whisp]

45. like Meta, jury is another failed experiment. n/t

[The Magistrate]

46. Flat Bigotry, Sir: You Know It, And I Know It

You speak of people as animals and state they lag in evolution; that is such standard issue bigotry and racism it ought not need spelling out. Evidently, for you, it does....

[another_liberal]

29. You are way out of line, my friend.

That little screed is pure bigotry, Islamophobic hate speech from start to finish.

[Xyzse]

49. So I've read your post and your complaint and...

I may have to agree that painting on broad brush strokes is wrong, though you seem to have done the same thing. Granted, many people do it here as well with impunity depending on the subject.

Also, it looks like some have not broken down what you have mentioned to the points of it.
Please note, that in DU and many other boards, some zero in on the weakest part of the post. It tends to be the one that can be considered inflammatory out of context.

So here goes to better the post:

1 - Mention the actual group which is the "Muslim Brotherhood". Not the actual faith. In not making that distinction, which should have been implied from the topic, it allows some to consider it a broad painting of many of just that particular faith.
2 - Clarify that what you are speaking out against is "Religious Fundamentalism" and comparing their extreme to the Fundamentalism in America which you say is much less extreme than that.
3 - The point that some can not handle being civilized without being under a dictator is perhaps the point of contention in your post.

See, I don't actually think that is the case. However, I can see how the brotherhood was trying to remake Egypt in to a far more theocratic governing body.

Must say though, by relegating people as animals got you in to trouble. Try to avoid that and I think you'll do fine.

[bhikkhu]

11. I think back to 2011, where they said "we are not seeking power"

"We want to participate, not to dominate. We will not have a presidential candidate, we want to participate and help, we are not seeking power". And "We reject the religious state".

I suppose one has to be gullible and foolish once in a while, but I recall that much of my estimation of the dangers or likelihood of good results in the Egyptian spring was based on believing that the Muslim Brotherhood would do as they said they would do. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/09/egypt.muslim.brotherhood/index.html

The paths not taken...now its just tragic, and no signs of any better end to it.

[branford]

21. There is a reason why so many Egyptians are backing the military over the MB. n/t

[another_liberal]

30. If there are so many of them . . .?

How come they lost Egypt's first democratic election to Morsi and the Brotherhood?

[branford]

31. The election was close. That and the MB's poor leadership help explain the current near civil war.

[another_liberal]

32. Maybe so . . .

But either you believe in democracy and a peoples' right to choose their own leaders through popular vote, or you do not. I do.

[branford]

40. I therefore assume that you supported Bush '41 and '43, and most certainly, Ronald Reagan!

Do I even need to mention that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected?

Or, closer to the actual situation in Egypt, that Hamas (and offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) was elected in the Palestinian territories, but we have yet to see another election (in Gaza OR the West Bank), and no one even pretends that the people in Gaza live under a fair and democratic government.

I support human rights, democratic institutions and repeated free and fair elections. If the MB was democratically elected, but then actively sought to permanently entrench their theocratic, intolerant and undemocratic leadership, I would most certainly support their ouster. I only question why, if you care about the Egyptian people, you would not do the same?

I am also astonished that many on DU support the premise that a single democratic election is sufficient to warrant American support. For heaven's sake, this was the prime motivating ideology of Bush '43. Oh, how soon we forget!

[another_liberal]

67. Nonsense!

You support "democratic institutions" when the people you like win. That is not the same as supporting democracy. It is called blind partisanship.

As to Reagan and the Bushes: Despite their underhanded methods, especially in the case of both of George W.'s wins, they have never staged a bloody military coup to seize our government. If you don't understand the immense difference between their tactics and the horror now taking place under the leadership of Egypt's generals, you really should consider not even commenting.

[branford]

70. If you believe my comments are inappropriate, feel free to report me! Good luck with that.

If you bothered to fully read my comments, you would understand that I "like" neither the Egyptian military nor the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm Jewish and support Israel. I can only imagine what either of these parties think of me. Who, exactly, do I owe this purported "blind partisanship?"

More importantly, "supporting democracy" in no way means you have to agree or ally with the winner. Having an election does not guaranty yours, mine or America's support. This is most certainly true if the elected party proceeds to change laws and subvert the judiciary in blatantly undemocratic ways to ensure their continued undemocratic hegemony.

I do not like that anyone is needlessly suffering. However, MB members are hardly all non-violent victims in this ongoing tragedy, as the Coptic Christians and their smoldering churches can readily attest, and I stand by my analysis that the military is preferable to the MB if true democracy ever hopes to be achieved in Egypt.

[another_liberal]

72. You support Israel?

Good for you.

I support the Israeli people. I do not support their government, nor do I support its policies.

[branford]

73. I support a peaceful settlement, including two states for two peoples.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and I'm not hopeful for a resolution any time soon.

The issues and conflicts run deep and trust is non-existent. I also believe the lack of a unified Palestinian voice makes settlement even more difficult.

As an aside, I very much would like a peaceful and stable Egypt (and Syria), as it would reduce tension in the entire region and increase the chances of a settlement.

[leftynyc]

84. I am also getting tagged

with the nonsense that I must not care about the carnage and violence because I wont support the brotherhood. It's a tiresome argument that starts in the land of fantasy of what a Democrat is supposed to be. I know it's a bit late but allow me to welcome such a reasonable voice.

[sabbat hunter]

53. the opposition

was divided, the MB were not.

[another_liberal]

68. Yes, quite true.

That is why I think Morsi should be reinstated as President, on the condition he calls for new elections early in 2014. The generals, however, must be made to pay for their crimes. They are unforgivable monsters who have committed mass murder of their fellow Egyptians.

[freshwest]

95. My estimation of positive or negative change were based on media coverage.

This was near the time that people in Wisconsin began protested moves by their GOP controlled legislature and governor. They even called Walker by the name Mubarak.

There was a sense of solidarity, as there were unions and government employees in Egypt who wanted change. I recall this poster celebrating the demonstrations:



Upon gaining majority, as you say, the paths chosen did not go where we expected. Perhaps we should have:

Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt

It was not long after then that this bill was offered. One of the paths chosen:

Egyptian women protest proposed law allowing a husband to have sex w/dead wife within 6 hrs of death

Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.

The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/04/25/210198.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11381520

The Wikipedia entry terms their Ideology as:

Sunni Islamism
Islamic Democracy
Religious Conservatism

I'm not sure why we thought those three items would be compatible, if that is what they were about. I suspect if it was in terms we are familiar with, we might understand. These terms are not precise or inclusive, just a guess:

Fundamentalist Christianity
Christian Nationalism
Religious Conservatism

This the governmental style espoused by CPAC, the Faith and Freedom Coalition and American Family Association.

Their spokesmen and candidates include Ralph Reed, Bryan Fischer, Tim Wildmon, Karl Rove, VA governor Bob McDonnell, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Jr., Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Ron and Rand Paul. CPAC had invited Haley Barbor, Donald Trump and Glenn Beck to speak but they were either unable or unwilling to attend.

What this bunch is doing to us is only one step above the worst the the MB had to offer, as we are not engaging in open warfare here, even if it's the wet dream of the conservatives. But the outcome should not be a surprise to us.

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

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

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

[snooper2]

12. Have fun, try not to fuck up any national treasures or museums, etc,.

[Eugene]

17. Egypt's 'Day of Rage' turns violent, dozens of protesters killed

Source: Reuters

Egypt's 'Day of Rage' turns violent, dozens of protesters killed

By Tom Perry and Alexander Dziadosz
CAIRO | Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:02pm EDT

(Reuters) - Muslim Brotherhood protests plunged into violence across Egypt on Friday, with around 50 killed in Cairo alone on a "Day of Rage" called by Islamist followers of ousted President Mohamed Mursi to denounce a police crackdown.

Automatic gunfire echoed across Cairo and black smoke billowed from the capital's huge Ramses Square, a military helicopter hovering low overhead looking down on the chaos.

A Reuters witness saw the bodies of 27 people, apparently hit by gunfire and birdshot, wrapped in white sheets in a mosque. A Reuters photographer said security forces opened fire from numerous directions when a police station was attacked.

At least 20 people died in clashes elsewhere in Egypt.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-egypt-protests-idUSBRE97C09A20130816

[dipsydoodle]

18. On the subject of Wednesday things are not always as reported

Describing events using social media and even photos from established journalists can be fraught when events are so turbulent. Zahra Damji explains how one standout image from two days ago was not what it appeared to be.

On Wednesday, several media outlets published a picture that emerged on Wednesday depicting an armored vehicle falling off October 6 Bridge in Cairo alongside captions suggesting that it had been pushed off a bridge by anti-Morsi protesters.



But video footage published on YouTube yesterday has cast doubts on that narrative, depicting a vehicle of a similar colour and type reversing over the railings of the bridge in an attempt to get away from a group of protesters who continue to chase it.

see 5.32 BST here : http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/aug/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-day-iof-rage-live

[another_liberal]

35. Thanks for the clarification.

I wondered how that could have happened as it was reported. Those things are too heavy to lifted like a Cooper Mini.

[cosmicone]

55. Why can't the radical Islamic groups react with

something other than "rage" and violence?

How about peaceful marches or candlelight vigils?

[dipsydoodle]

56. They'd already tried that.

Next week is back to marches with no Friday sit in.

[branford]

59. Violence is the nature of radical Islamist theocrats.

Unsurprisingly, it's exceedingly difficult to oppress women, kill infidels and homosexuals and maintain a 16th century culture with peaceful marches and candles.

I direct your attention to Aesop's fable of the Scorpion and the Frog. I learned this valuable lesson in grade school. Unfortunately many still do not recognize the obvious.

I weep for the peaceful, secular and democratic members of Egypt's revolution. I hope that their efforts were not in vain, and the military follows through on the promise of new, free and fair elections. I will not be holding my breadth.

[Comrade Grumpy]

94. Maybe they should throw flowers at the soldiers massacring them by the hundreds?

[quadrature]

57. these people need a divorce

it would seem that MBers
are not compatible with others.
something has to give.

a real civil war is needed

[cosmicone]

58. There should be a separate country called fuckedupistan

for all the radicals from everywhere. That will allow the rest to live in peace and harmony.

[Quantess]

64. Sounds really positive and productive!

This region of the world is wonderful at problem solving. This is sure to go well!

[MrSlayer]

89. This is why we should have simply backed Mubarak at the beginning.

Let him put down the resistance and carried on business as usual. At least we knew where that guy stood and he wasn't a fundy idiot. It would have saved a lot of bloodshed.

This crap is going to go on for years.

[MADem]

102. Mubarak was tone deaf, and he wasn't moving fast enough to transition to civilian rule.

He also had a son with "aspirations" and there was some concern that he would want to follow along, a la Assad dictatorship.

Had Mubarak moved quickly, earlier, he could have avoided his own personal problems as well as the agita and bloodshed. He could have gone out on a high note--but he stayed too long at the fair, as they say.

It's the oddest thing, that people with power rarely want to give it up. It's like a drug, and it changes people, usually not in a good way.

The good news is, they're already roughing out a "sane" Constitution (stripping out all the fundy shit) and al-Sisi has said he doesn't want to run the country, and wants to restore civilian rule as quickly as possible.

They may have to beat down the MB, but they may be able to get this ship back on course. I hope so.