• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Egypt Riots

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well there is nothing wrong Incorrputable supporting these fundis from a machivelli view. You can own thier dumbasses because they will be poor and cant thnk for themselves. Show me one rich country of any religion that does not have a sea of oil below them. Anyway Reagen masterfully did this divide conquer rule. So while Obama may appear sctizo there is a method to his madness.
 
unokitty said:
From the Declaration of Independence:

Best of luck to the Egyptians seeking freedom!

Uno
Click to expand...

Is that really what's going on over there? The economy is shaky and I'm sure Christians and other non-Muslims aren't happy with an Islamic ruler one year into his first term, but that's probably not grounds for revolution and reelections.

You think a reelection will lead to a different result? Nope. Go to new elections now and the Muslim Brotherhood will win again. Time to start forming parties, invent policies and sharpen 'dem arguments for when it's time for the next election (not the one they want now). Democracy isn't your guy winning, democracy is majority rule.

EDIT:

So, the military kicked Mursi out of office. This is gonna turn out great.
 
Last edited:
Incorruptible said:
I remember warning about the failure of the Arab Spring and how radicals like the MB would get elected. This guy Morsi must go.

Hopefully they replace him with someone who respects freedom and small government but I'm not too sure what will happen.
Click to expand...

Typical from a clueless supremacist..

Morsi s first move was to establish press freedom wich
was censored under the mubarak rule....but accuracy
doesnt matter for the usual haters that hang by there..
 
PingviN said:
Want elections
Get elections
Your guy didn't win
Demand new elections
Repeat ad infinitum

I don't think the Egyptians understand how a democracy works.
Click to expand...

They understand nothing , not even that they are actualy
protesting against their own mediocrity.
 
PingviN said:
Want elections
Get elections
Your guy didn't win
Demand new elections
Repeat ad infinitum

I don't think the Egyptians understand how a democracy works.
Click to expand...

The hypothetical question has often been posed: "What happens if a democracy is established and the people elect an authoritarian government anyway?"

Now we know at least one outcome.

On one hand, a military coup against a democratically elected leader is troublesome. On the other, I feel like saying "good riddance to bad rubbish". The protests in Egypt were started by people who seemingly wanted a freer society, and then when Mubarak was gone the movement was basically co-opted by Islamists who have no interest in a real freedom. The Muslim Brotherhood isn't as bad as the Salafists, but they aren't that great either.

I suspect if they had been able to provide democratic outlets for people's frustrations, or at least had been able to do something about Egypt's wrecked economy, they would have been fine. Unemployed people are unhappy people, though, and they had high expectations that were not even close to being met.
 
Time will tell how this turns out. What impresses me most is how swiftly ,and to their word, the Military carried it out. I hope they can get a non-radical, secular focused Government interested only in improving the Economic and Social conditions within Egypt.
 
Balt said:
The hypothetical question has often been posed: "What happens if a democracy is established and the people elect an authoritarian government anyway?"

Now we know at least one outcome.

On one hand, a military coup against a democratically elected leader is troublesome. On the other, I feel like saying "good riddance to bad rubbish". The protests in Egypt were started by people who seemingly wanted a freer society, and then when Mubarak was gone the movement was basically co-opted by Islamists who have no interest in a real freedom. The Muslim Brotherhood isn't as bad as the Salafists, but they aren't that great either.

I suspect if they had been able to provide democratic outlets for people's frustrations, or at least had been able to do something about Egypt's wrecked economy, they would have been fine. Unemployed people are unhappy people, though, and they had high expectations that were not even close to being met.
Click to expand...
Well said.

Patranus said:
Isn't the Obama legacy great!
Replacing a friendly/stable country with this.
Click to expand...
To be fair, he was between a rock and a hard place. Mubarak was a dictator, but also a good friend to the USA. So Obama supported him until it was apparent that Mubarak was going to fall, then he supported the Muslim Brotherhood who were clearly going to be the victors. Even if Obama could ethically support denying people democratic representation other than by saying nice things about Mubarak, he was effectively powerless to preserve him, and there was no apparent candidate beyond the Muslim Brotherhood who looked to be better for us and for the Egyptian people. I doubt McCain or Romney could or would have done anything substantially different. As much as I dislike the Muslim Brotherhood, were I President I'd have done the same. Got to try to keep friendly relations with such an important ally because a more friendly party or person may come into power later and we don't want to alienate the country.
 
Patranus said:
Isn't the Obama legacy great!
Replacing a friendly/stable country with this.
Click to expand...


I like it when people think our president is singly repsonsible for the affairs of other nations, and they either blame them when other countries fuck up, or ignore the contributions when things work out (not that they commonly do)
 
I think Bush Jr did the world a huge favor by invading Iraq. That was the trigger which set the dominos in motion, and out of the chaos freedom and democracy is rising.
 
Abwx said:
Typical from a clueless supremacist..

Morsi s first move was to establish press freedom wich
was censored under the mubarak rule....but accuracy
doesnt matter for the usual haters that hang by there..
Click to expand...

Typical from a clueless scumbag like you.

Morsi wanted Sharia law and was an anti-semite. He was part of the MB and is a radical.

You should be ashamed of yourself for defending Morsi and obama.
 
sandorski said:
Time will tell how this turns out. What impresses me most is how swiftly ,and to their word, the Military carried it out. I hope they can get a non-radical, secular focused Government interested only in improving the Economic and Social conditions within Egypt.
Click to expand...


The problem with democracy is that it takes organization.

Its easy to find a singular target that a lot of people hate and get them kicked out.

its another to find a leader that can even begin to embody the wide variety of ideals these protestors have.

Just because they hate the current guy, does not mean they all want the same thing from the leader.
 
Balt said:
The hypothetical question has often been posed: "What happens if a democracy is established and the people elect an authoritarian government anyway?"
Click to expand...

One year into his first term is pretty soon to call fowl and demand his resignation. Even if he was behind some questionable laws regarding immunity from legal actions, it's just too soon to tell. The military weren't happy with him, so I'm not surprised they kicked him to the curb, but this opens up for a new Mubarak or disbelief in the democratic process (why vote when the minority just protests until they get what they want anyways).

Regarding who started the revolution and who didn't: it doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't ban certain political or religious views because you don't agree with them. The Egyptians wanted Mursi and his Brotherhood and they got it. The minority then has to go into opposition and win the next election. Explain to voters why Islamism is stupid as **** and isn't a viable ideology to base a modern society on. Egyptian Muslims, Christians and Atheists should be able to rally under the flag of social democracy or liberalism just like we do in the civilized world, but it's gonna take some time. Until that happens, you can't force your democratically elected head of state to resign or decide that those who don't agree with democratic values shouldn't be able to vote.
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
Well said.


To be fair, he was between a rock and a hard place. Mubarak was a dictator, but also a good friend to the USA. So Obama supported him until it was apparent that Mubarak was going to fall, then he supported the Muslim Brotherhood who were clearly going to be the victors. Even if Obama could ethically support denying people democratic representation other than by saying nice things about Mubarak, he was effectively powerless to preserve him, and there was no apparent candidate beyond the Muslim Brotherhood who looked to be better for us and for the Egyptian people. I doubt McCain or Romney could or would have done anything substantially different. As much as I dislike the Muslim Brotherhood, were I President I'd have done the same. Got to try to keep friendly relations with such an important ally because a more friendly party or person may come into power later and we don't want to alienate the country.
Click to expand...

I agree with this regarding Obama not being able to keep Mubarek in power, and that condemning him and asking him to step down was the obvious move. However, I don't recall there being specific support for the Brotherhood in particular. The US government supported Mubarek leaving and then free and fair elections. After Morsi was elected, we then recognized him as the legitimate head of state. Not quite the same thing as backing the Brotherhood in the elections themselves. But then my recollection could be in error here.
 
moonbogg said:
I think Bush Jr did the world a huge favor by invading Iraq. That was the trigger which set the dominos in motion, and out of the chaos freedom and democracy is rising.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but there are two major questions here. (1) Is Islamic democracy doing the world a favor? I support their right to democracy, but it's not yet clear that democracy will benefit the world along with themselves. And (2) was this invasion necessary to achieve the same result? There's an argument to be made that everything demonstrated and accomplished by invading and reforming Iraq could have resulted from Afghanistan, also a Muslim nation reformed to democracy. (We don't know for how long, but then we don't know that about Iraq either; fledgling nations are always a crap shoot.)

woolfe9998 said:
I agree with this regarding Obama not being able to keep Mubarek in power, and that condemning him and asking him to step down was the obvious move. However, I don't recall there being specific support for the Brotherhood in particular. The US government supported Mubarek leaving and then free and fair elections. After Morsi was elected, we then recognized him as the legitimate head of state. Not quite the same thing as backing the Brotherhood in the elections themselves. But then my recollection could be in error here.
Click to expand...
Honestly "support" might be the wrong term. "Work with" might be closer, as only the Muslim Brotherhood had any existing organization and were by default the de facto government. The point is the same though. Obama walked a tightrope of supporting Mubarak while also supporting democracy. Once it was clear that Mubarak was going, Obama switched to asking Mubarak to step down. After that Obama worked with the Muslim Brotherhood during the transition, and afterwards supported Morsi as legitimate ruler.

The US has three sometimes-clashing interests here: Promoting democracy, promoting the best relationship possible with whatever government emerged, and maintaining Egypt in particular as an ally even if necessary around the new government, to the extent that a Middle Eastern Islamic nation can be a US ally. Preserving Mubarak was in service to the latter two interest but in conflict with the first. I think you and I agree that within the existing events and considering those parameters, any President would have done much the same, regardless of how much we may dislike the results. His actions are constrained by our national interests, whereas mine as an unempowered peon are not.
 
15-anti-obama-photos-from-tahrir-square-protests-that-you-probably-havent-seen

4jnGaRH.jpg


BPZKHMM.jpg


n7Kh7qu.jpg
 
Remember people that obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and wanted Mubarak out. He bears some responsibility for the suffering of the Egyptian people.

Now he didn't back the Egyptian people but supported a radical. The people in Egpyt burned an effigy of the American ambassador.

Obama should be ashamed of himself along with his supporters for what they did.
 
lothar said:
You do remember that the protests going on in Turkey is not because of religion, right?
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. The initial catalyst(s) and focus for the recent protests are not based on religion, but there is certainly still an element of moderate versus conservative (or "more fundamental" ) beliefs underlying much of the turmoil there.

After decades of moderate reform, the current Turkish regime has been slowly and semi-quietly swinging the pendulum back toward a more conservative system. Resistance against the move toward conservativism has certainly been one aspect of the entire series of protests and confrontations you're now witnessing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top