Egyptian Security Forces Storm Pro-Morsi Camps Leaving Nearly 100 Dead

After weeks of protesting the ousting of Morsi (forming encampments in Cairo during that time), the Egyptian security forces forcibly broke up the protesters' camps early this morning. Things quickly turned violent, leaving around one hundred people dead, including at least two journalists. The interim President has also declared an indefinite state of emergency, "allowing security forces to arrest and detain civilians indefinitely without charge." The AP reports that clashes are not isolated to Cairo: "Dozens of people have been killed across Egypt Wednesday in clashes between security forces and supporters of Morsi."

Comments

Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's still not a military coup for which reason?

Re:Not a Coup?

[fustakrakich]

Money... DUH!

Re:Not a Coup?

[DarkOx]

Because our government is run by thugs, and ruled with corruption of a kind that would make middle eastern leaders blush.

Re:Not a Coup?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

It's the same post WW2 U.S. foreign policy it has always been: dictatorships are preferable to boogeymen.

Before, boogeymen = commies. Now, boogeymen = islamists.

You always need the boogeymen. The military-industrial complex needs justification.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which media outlet claims it wasn't? Every media I have seen suggested a coup in the very beginning. A lesson for any nation: first formulate a fair and balanced constitution, then select a interim government to built the core facilities required to start satisfying the requirements of the constitution, after which you choose a president. Not the other way around.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Guru80]

Because the world would have to be responsible for their inaction and cut off billions in funding, nobody wants that! Oh wait....everybody wants that, except politicians of course. To much money going around in lobbying and special interest groups and whatever else can put money into their pockets to take a stance that might hurt that.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

and Morsi's government was not a perversion of democracy to install another theocratic dictatorship?

Re:Not a Coup?

[jxander]

The government. They're not saying it ISN'T a coup ... but there also not saying that is IS.

We have laws in this country that prevent us from sending financial aid to countries where a coup has occurred. So as long as the government doesn't actively admit what's going on, we can keep bribing people over there.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

because BO is a Fing evil bastard and if he does the money wont be a flowin.

Re:Not a Coup?

[kwiqsilver]

Because if it was a coup, then the US government couldn't give the Egyptian government $1B+ each year to buy weapons from US manufacturers, that they then use to maintain their coup...er...democracy. Corporate welfare is very important. You wouldn't want to see those rich industrialists out on the street would you?

Re:Not a Coup?

[Dutchmaan]

...and I'll bet you've only come to this realization since 2008!

Re:Not a Coup?

[ShanghaiBill]

Too much money going around in lobbying and special interest groups ...

The primary "special interest group" behind American support for the coup, is AIPAC. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Morsi was pro-Hamas. Support for Hamas ended with the coup, and AIPAC has threatened retribution against any politician that tries to cut off the billions of American tax dollars flowing to the new military dictatorship.

Morsi was a terrible leader, and deserved to be removed from office. But the way to do that in a democracy is to hold a recall election, not by sending soldiers into the street. As an American, I am very ashamed of what my country is doing.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Bing Tsher E]

Be reasonable, now. B.O. Plenty wasn't even one of the main villains in the Dick Tracy series.

Re:Not a Coup?

[GameboyRMH]

But those boogeymen are so good at dancing. They're just here to do whatever they can. Bogeymen, on the other hand...

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

nope just since the black guy took over... o wait

Re:Not a Coup?

[argStyopa]

Of course it's a military coup. Anyone who claims it isn't is either an idiot or is trying to spin it for the "simple folk".

In this case, it's a military coup that we LIKE because we prefer military juntas to reactionary religious extremists.

Claiming it's not a military coup because some idiots think that "all military coups are bad" is simply catering to the simpletons who believe things like "all democracy is good" or "all Arabs/Jews are bad" (whichever), etc. In the REAL WORLD, things aren't quite so black and white as the dimwitted public seems to prefer.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Arker]

"So as long as the government doesn't actively admit what's going on, we can keep bribing people over there."

The notion that office holders can simply avoid admitting what everyone knows, without even denying it, and thereby entitle themselves to break the law with impunity, is really astonishing.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coups are defined as illegally taking power. If your Constitution sets the guidelines for the military to take over power than it is not illegal. Still, it is a junta, which also brings negative connotations.

Re:Not a Coup?

[cayenne8]

Money... DUH!

And we continue to send them money why again??

Re:Not a Coup?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ask John Kerry!

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry visted Pakistan. In an interview with Geo TV he remarked on Egypt:

SECRETARY KERRY: [...] The military was asked to intervene by millions and millions of people, all of whom were afraid of a descendance into chaos, into violence. And the military did not take over, to the best of our judgment so â" so far. To run the country, thereâ(TM)s a civilian government. In effect, they were restoring democracy. And the fact is --

QUESTION: By killing people on the roads?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, no. Thatâ(TM)s not restoring democracy, and weâ(TM)re very, very concerned about, very concerned about that. And Iâ(TM)ve had direct conversations with President Mansour, with Vice President ElBaradei, with General al-Sisi, as have other members of our government. And Iâ(TM)ve talked to the Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy, so Iâ(TM)ve been in touch with all of the players there. And we have made it clear that that is absolutely unacceptable, it cannot happen.

Now, as you know, these situations can be very confusing and very difficult. Weâ(TM)re working very hard right now with Lady Catherine Ashton, with various officials, with other foreign ministers of other countries, in order to try to see if we can resolve this peacefully. But the story of Egypt is not finished yet, so we have to see how it unfolds in the next days.

Re:Not a Coup?

[TheNastyInThePasty]

We don't send them money. We then them things (read: tanks, aircraft, arms, etc) made in the USA, many of which sit in crates and warehouses unused. Most of the financial aid given to Egypt doesn't even leave the US; it goes straight to the manufacturers of said things and makes the CEOs very rich indeed. The military-industrial complex wins again!

Re:Not a Coup?

[DexterIsADog]

FYI, the reason it matters what we call it is that there's a U.S. law that requires we cut off funding to perpetrators of a coup. So when the administration refuses to call it a coup, they're not being idiots or spinning it for "simple folk", they are simply trying to avoid obeying the law. Try following the news, it's been everywhere since the coup.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Dorianny]

And it's still not a military coup for which reason?

it’s important to realize that most Egyptians view the U.S. aid as “a kind of payment” for keeping the peace with Israel. Though the aid isn’t part of the peace treaty, it began immediately after the treaty was signed, and for 34 years, the only condition on its continuance has been continuation of the treaty. The army is the main beneficiary of the aid and since the army is not only Egypt’s de facto ruler, but also the treaty’s main supporter in a country where most people would rather scrap it, ending aid would likely be terrible for Egypt-Israeli relations.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Ralph Wiggam]

it goes straight to the manufacturers of said things and makes the CEOs very rich indeed.

These manufacturing companies have no employees, buy no equipment, build no buildings, and require no raw materials?

Re:Not a Coup?

[jrumney]

Because the US disagrees with the views of the democratically elected government, just as was the case with the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Occupied Territories (now exiled to Gaza). Democracy is good, except when it produces results we don't like.

Re:Not a Coup?

[fustakrakich]

Why do you think they call it money laundering??

Re:Not a Coup?

[drkim]

But those boogeymen are so good at dancing. They're just here to do whatever they can. Bogeymen, on the other hand...

...think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Re: Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because as an American, living in America, you have just a fairy tale notion of what the situation in Egypt is, and think it was possible to remove Morsi by democratic means, and that Morsi was acting in a democratic way just because he was elected, and that the institutions were being respected instead of quickly transformed into an Islamic dictatorship.

Re:Not a Coup?

[argStyopa]

Perhaps by "simple folk" I was specifically referring to CONGRESS?

"...they are simply trying to avoid obeying the law...."
Nice Freudian slip there.

Re:Not a Coup?

[DexterIsADog]

Not buying it about "simple folk" - that doesn't make any sense in the context.

And that wasn't a Freudian slip. (No pun intended.)

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how law works... Laws are not human. They are words written that everyone must respect, or there will be no civil society.

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So as long as the government doesn't actively admit what's going on, we can keep bribing people over there."

The notion that office holders can simply avoid admitting what everyone knows, without even denying it, and thereby entitle themselves to break the law with impunity, is really astonishing.

This is the SOP of the US Govt. Or have you been asleep your entire life? Care to count how many wars the US have engaged in without Congress declaring war because the executive did not admit it was really "war", just "armed conflict"?

Re: Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because as an American, living in America, you have just a fairy tale notion of what the situation in Egypt is, and think it was possible to remove Morsi by democratic means, and that Morsi was acting in a democratic way just because he was elected, and that the institutions were being respected instead of quickly transformed into an Islamic dictatorship.

So, when will Americans stage a coup to remove the Business Party (with two factions called D & R) from office? Or do Americans have the fairy tale notion that it is possible to remove the Business Party by democratic means?

Re:Not a Coup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, except of course for all the raping killing and burning of churches they're just misunderstood right?

So Much for Democracy

[DexterIsADog]

They tried it in Egypt, and the army said, "no, you're doing it wrong". Actually it was more like, "no, you might cut into our profits", so... no Democracy for you!

Re:So Much for Democracy

[MightyYar]

I've heard both sides of this. One says Morsi was the democratically elected leader and ousting him destroys any chance at democracy. The other side says he was setting himself up as dictator. As usual, the truth is probably sloppier than either side would admit. I do know that the military is still enjoying a lot of popularity, so this is likely to continue. I wish the country well, and I hope they get it all sorted out.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Immerman]

I think it broke down a little before the army stepped in: (condensed from wikipedia entry on Morsi)
June 2012, election committee announces that Morsi has won the election
Nov. 2012 - Morsi temporarily grants himself unlimited power, including the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review
    - hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets in the 2012 Egyptian protests
Dec 2012 - Morsi annuls his decree of unlimited power, but states that all the effects of his time as de-facto emperor will remain
June 30, 2013 - mass protests erupt calling for the presidents resignation after severe fuel shortages and electricity outages
    - the army threatens to step in and build a roadmap for the country if protestors demands aren't met by July 3, while insisting they did not want to rule the country or intend for a military coup.
Morsi was declared unseated on 3 July 2013 by a council consisting of defence minister Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, the Grand Imam of Al Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb, and Coptic Pope Tawadros II

Can't say I've paid enough attention to Egypt since then to be able to say anything about how democracy is likely to fair going forward, but it certainly wasn't doing too well before the army stepped in.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If revolutions of the past are any indications, often one change in leadership does not cut it. Just look at how many changes the french revolution went through. From dictator to other dictator to ones that really don't know what they do to even more dictators. Its also not because a guy is chosen, often during a very hectic period and often a guy that is rather radical that its a good leader or even one that actually supports the system that got him in place. Getting a true democracy that does not trample the rights of a minority is a difficult process.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Billly Gates]

The election was flawed inthe first place and rushed.

The way it was setup insured there were only 2 choices. Center and left was fractured while the right was united through a single radical muslim. So the rule of 2 applied where you had a former Mabarik henchman corrupt or a radical muslim and no further candidates? If you were Egyptian who would you vote for?

A dictator under corrupt American imperialist or freedom from a religious group who is fanatical, yet was not part of the old boss club?

American anology would be Pat Robertson who promises a Christian theocracy or King George III who promises a return to the old? Wouldnt must of you protest too?

These are what the post Morsi protests to ask the army to remove him were about? Majority of Egyptians oppose Morsi like the majority of Americans and Floridians voted for Al Gore, yet Harris threw out enough ballots to tip it to Bush combined with Electoral College caused the anti Bush bias you see and divided country. Egypt is the same. Divided with one group thinks its legit and the other feels robbed.

Libya is fine and done right

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Libya doing it right? They've just made themselves an Islamic theocracy, like Morsi's party wants, and not even had elections so far. And if they did, the Islamic parties would win. They're not interested in secular alternatives, and nor do they tolerate them. It's not the lack of options in Libya - it's that a majority of that population is happy to be the Saudi Arabia of Africa.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[DarkOx]

The problem is both are true. Morsi was the democratically elected leader, and he was setting if not himself up as a dictator permanent brotherhood rule.

Still unless someone can prove he violated Egypts new Constitution Morsi is the only legitimate leader of that nation. Its not know if Morsi's effort to marginalize opposition parties would have been effective enough to see him re-elected with a public wise to the danger/agenda he posed; it was however to duty of anyone who seriously wanted a democracy in Egypt to wait that long and find out.

This is sham; and long term I am confident it will prove harmful to reform. You can't have a democracy and a precedent for simply removing elected leaders when you are not satisfied with the outcome.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[MightyMartian]

I'm not sure what the Egyptian Army was to do. The protests against Morsi and the MB were massive, and I think it's well justified to call this a popular uprising.

Here in the West we're largely used to peaceful transfers of government and political parties, despite some ideological differences, tending to stick to the middle ground on most issues. While there are certainly protest movements, we haven't had them at the fever pitch that has been seen in the Arab Spring. For better or for worse we still, at least nominally, believe in the political process as the appropriate channel for change.

In countries like Egypt, where democracy has never really existed, and the democratic institutions that are there are more shams or for show than functional governmental and political entities, there is little or no civic notion of political process. A strong man falls, another takes his place. That seems to have been what Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood had decided, that somehow the uprising against Mubarak was simply another iteration of the same old process, and now Morsi could take his rightful place as King of the Mountain, inflict his movement's policies and his political allies on the populace by tossing out everyone from school principles to the head of a symphony orchestra with Muslim Brotherhood members.

So, for me, while I think it's troubling that the Army again asserted itself into the political process, the problem seems to be a distinct lack of political process. Clearly there are serious flaws in the constitution that was promulgated, and ultimately few checks on the powers of the Egyptian President and his cronies. This is something of a reset, but whether it will produce better results or not is difficult to say. One thing that has happened is that the Egyptian opposition groups and parties realize that their disunity is what delivered Morsi and the MB the last election, and that if they're serious about a change in the way the government works, they're going to have to stop the internecine warfare.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The situation isn't nearly as simple as you imply. Morsi won the election then suspended parliament and set out on a year-long agenda to usurp power and push though the Muslim Brotherhood's view of Egypt's future, which is far more religious than most Egyptians want. I know that we in the west expect our elected politicians to break most of their campaign promises and then do what they had secretly planned to do all along as soon as they are in office, but the Egyptions weren't having it right after a revolution.

The army does what it does for many reasons, in parallel. I doubt that they are purely altruistic, but I believe they were sincere in enforcing the will of the people. They only removed Morsi after millions of people had protested against the president for weeks, with more and more people coming out every day. A true democracy should have some way to kick someone out of office if he or she completely disregards their mandate. This obviously isn't it, but it's what many of the people wanted, and Morsi wasn't about to hold a referendum to see.

Of course, the current situation is not good. Morsi supporters were glad that he was a champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt was already a silently divided nation before this came into the open. The conservative religious factions would like to gradually move Egypt towards Sharia law and Islamic theocracy. Others, especially among the youth, would like Egypt to embrace more aspects of Western culture.

Egypt is one of the more modern Islamic nations. The country is relatively open to the West and there is a great deal of tourism in the country that exposes them to Western culture. They are also very active online with relatively little censorship. I believe that the majority of Egyptians want to see the nation continue in this direction. This is good for the rest of the Western world as well. Egypt's culture has considerable influence on the rest of the Arabic world due to their prominent media industries. It is one of the reasons that people who wish to study Arabic are told to learn Egyptian Arabic. It is the most widely understood modern Arabic dialect. As such, if Egypt breaks away from the influence of religious fundamentalism then it's a win for everyone except the fundies.

So, what can they do at this point? If most people were upset with Morsi for abandoning his mandate and acting as an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, then he should clearly not be in power. How then do you appease those who want him re-instated? They have been protesting and creating problems for over 5 or 6 weeks now, in the middle of the capital. There is no perfect solution. Unfortunately, the army has turned to force and this will mar everything else that they have done, but I still believe that supporting the will of the people was one of their main reasons for entering the fray, and there are not many options on the table when you are dealing with violent mobs with armed members.

At this point only time will tell where Egypt goes next, but with Morsi at the helm they were not on their way to true democracy. Ultimately, when you have such large opposing factions, true democracy may be impossible.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The election was flawed inthe first place and rushed.

The way it was setup insured there were only 2 choices. Center and left was fractured while the right was united through a single radical muslim. So the rule of 2 applied where you had a former Mabarik henchman corrupt or a radical muslim and no further candidates? If you were Egyptian who would you vote for?

A dictator under corrupt American imperialist or freedom from a religious group who is fanatical, yet was not part of the old boss club?

American anology would be Pat Robertson who promises a Christian theocracy or King George III who promises a return to the old? Wouldnt must of you protest too?

These are what the post Morsi protests to ask the army to remove him were about? Majority of Egyptians oppose Morsi like the majority of Americans and Floridians voted for Al Gore, yet Harris threw out enough ballots to tip it to Bush combined with Electoral College caused the anti Bush bias you see and divided country. Egypt is the same. Divided with one group thinks its legit and the other feels robbed.

Libya is fine and done right

Sour fucking grapes.

Grow up. Every review after the fact showed Bush won Florida.

And heaven forbid Gore's efforts to lawyer his way to the Presidency when he was behind in the vote count were classless and divisive. Oh, that can't be it at all. Here's a hint: when you're given a lesson how to handle yourself with class in a close election you lost under questionable circumstances by the behavior of RICHARD FUCKING NIXON, you're a divisive classless hack.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

basically its just a fight between the military powers that be and the religious powers that be, the guys in the streets waving flags and shouting slogans are just dressing.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

basically its just a fight between the military powers that be and the religious powers that be, the guys in the streets waving flags and shouting slogans are just cannon fodder.

FTFY

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Billly Gates]

Sounds like you have been watching too much Fox News?

Libya is the most moderate and pro western friendly government int the middle east! The muslim brotherhood there got around 10% of the votes. The people had no desire for this and had choices.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Trepidity]

If I recall my History Channel correctly, when the Grand Imam of Al Azhar and the Coptic Pope get together and formally agree on something, strange events start taking place.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Rockoon]

June 30, 2013 - mass protests erupt calling for the presidents resignation after severe fuel shortages and electricity outages

Understatement of the year.

It was arguably the largest protest in the history of the world. Some claims are as much as 14 million people, nearly 17% of the Egyptian population.

To put that in perspective, 17% of the American population is more than 50 million people.

If 50 million Americans were protesting in the streets demanding that Obama (or Bush) to be removed from office, and as a response Obama (or Bush) then held a 5 hour television broadcast declaring that he will not only not be leaving office but that additionally that the constitution will never apply to him, then I damn well expect the American military to do the same thing.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Some other factors, at least from how I look at it as an outsider...

Morsi was allowing groups to operate from Egypt that were starting to piss of Israel. The current relationship between the two countries has been amiable at best, and the military of Egypt wants to keep it that way. They don't want Israel to have excuses for incursions, and obviously things that could cause a war is something they DO NOT WANT. (Considering how bad history has been for them regarding past conflicts.) Despite some disagreements, having trade and travel with a neighboring country is always better than some stupid war where no real interests are at stake.

The MB was also changing or influencing things that would make Egypt less friendly to tourism. Some fanatics in the MB even talking about destroying ancient artifacts and such. However that particular industry is a big money maker and employer for the country. So yeah, a lot of people would be pissed off about that.

And then there's just a lot of people being trod on in general because of their more secular nature, or having other beliefs. Having an official government sanctioned religion isn't something they want. And honestly if some people are unfomfortable about dealing with dealing with other cultures and outlooks on life and really want to live under strict muslim religious law, there are some other mideastern countries they could move to instead. It's not like they don't have that option.

The military of Egypt may be acting as part of a coup, but it's because they have plenty of experience in its affiars. (And will end up dealing with the mess if things go horribly wrong.) Yes, the old regime was corrupt. But no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When it comes to some newcomer(s) pissing away the few things that have been working well for the country, of course they're going attempt to nip it in the bud.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That's easy to say in a country where the most recently elected leader won't be in power indefinitely.

Democracy is a subset of freedom, not the other way around. Democracy has shown many times to collapse into dictatorship, especially with new ones.

Democracy is the tool free people use. Democracy does not create, and sure as hell is not synonymous with, freedom.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You also cant call it a 'democracy' when the ratification of the constitution is based on a marginal majority with massive controversy over its contents with the other stakeholders..

This wasn't just an election - it was an election to establish all the rules for the future, and that foundation was rammed down the throats of those who dissented.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[HornWumpus]

I'd expect a SS agent to cap him on camera.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[DarkOx]

All of what you say are policy positions though. Why have an elected government at all if its not empowered to disagree and ultimately direct its military generals. If the military is the ultimate decider of national policy than you have a oligarchy of military guys with a facade representative government.

    A plurality of the population of Egypt elected Morsi, those people probably want a more hostile relationship with Israel and probably are more concerned with their state religion than with its impact on tourism. Its *reasonable* for Morsi to adopt policies considered favorable by his electorate.

If others don't like it they need to stick together and make sure Morsi and the brotherhood does not win a plurality of votes in subsequent elections. Its also incumbent upon them to demand stronger checks and balance be put in place, while they have power.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, and thats why its effectively impossible for outsiders (such as the U.S. government) to take proper action.

Support Morsi, and you effectively support a dictator who lacks the support of 17% of the population thats SERIOUS enough to actively protest. We all saw what happened when the military stood idly by during the 2011 revolution against Hosni Mubarak (hint: people died).

Support the military, and you effective support a (what might turn into) military coup. Will the military step down (again) and let elections take place? Who knows? In the meantime though, clashes between pro-Morsi/Muslim Brotherhood/fundamentalist groups and the military will continue.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

poteito potato

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Bing Tsher E]

A plurality of the population of Egypt elected Morsi

Egypt was right smack in the middle of the ol' One Man, One Vote, One Time deal. The Islamic Brotherhood (a group very close to the Obama administration- the wife of that penis boy, (whatever his name is, who is running for mayor of NY) was the Islamic Brotherhood mouthpiece within Hillary's state department.

It's shocking that just to be anti-American, people flout shitty political situations like that, and back political forces that would incinerate the gay population of the world if they had their way.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[shilly]

Mod parent up. This is spot on.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Rakarra]

Libya is the most moderate and pro western friendly government int the middle east!

Methinks Israel and Jordan might quibble with that a bit. :-)

Re:So Much for Democracy

[poity]

I wish scores went up to 6

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that on between Pawn Stars and Top Shot?

Re:So Much for Democracy

[jd.schmidt]

Well, there IS more than one branch of government. Morsi also started dismissing and overriding the Judiciary unilaterally. He may have felt he has the power to do so under the new powers he granted himself, but that doesnâ(TM)t mean he legally did.

Basic lesson, 51% of the vote should not mean you get 100% of what you want. All well-functioning democracies have protections for the minority.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[T.E.D.]

If 50 million Americans were protesting in the streets demanding that Obama (or Bush) to be removed from office, and as a response Obama (or Bush) then held a 5 hour television broadcast declaring that he will not only not be leaving office but that additionally that the constitution will never apply to him, then I damn well expect the American military to do the same thing.

This. Here.

The problem in Egypt was that the ruling party changed the constitution so that there was no way to get rid of the official leadership if they didn't want to go. Any country that doesn't provide a peaceful means for the people to replace the government, gaurantees that it will be done by force one day.

For many countries this may take a while, but in Egypt the people had just replaced a dictator a year earlier. They were still organized, and the memories of those who died for Democracy were still fresh. There's no way you could expect any result other than a massive public uprising. When even this didn't move those in charge, the die was cast.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

He just had 100 people murdered, I think that removes legitimacy of his claim to rule the country.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except some analysts in Saudi and the US have found the Egyptian media have vastly inflated the numbers. The square where they were holding the protest probably could only hold a million people at most and some of the numbers reported are more than the entire population of Cairo!

Re:So Much for Democracy

[shutdown -p now]

Support the military, and you effective support a (what might turn into) military coup. Will the military step down (again) and let elections take place? Who knows?

Personally, I'd rather take that chance. We've seen examples of military safeguarding a slow but steady transition to democracy by enforcing secularism in a dictatorial way - Turkey is a prime example of this. I'd rather take the chance of Egypt going down that road, then becoming another "Islamic Republic".

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Far less damaging than a civil war between the President's Muslim Brotherhood supporters and the millions of people protesting his actions? I doubt it. Dead bodies make for way harder feelings than a deposed President as polarizing as Morsi, especially since the military has made it quite clear they have no desire to rule and the Supreme Constitutional Court has named an interim President until new elections can be held.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[shutdown -p now]

What votes? Large parts of Libya are not even controlled by the provisional government that they have. Whole cities (like e.g. Misrata) are basically run by militias. And there's an ongoing armed conflict there between secularists and Islamists; ironically, secularists now include both people who were Kaddafi supporters, and also those who opposed them from a democratic perspective.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[GodfatherofSoul]

We have an established democracy. Congress would immediately vote for impeachment and remove him from office with that kind of overwhelming sentiment. The problem is, Egypt is relying on an interim prime minister to facilitate the transition to a stable democracy and doesn't have a Legislative counterbalance to their executive. Seeing Morsi go was a seemed like the right thing to do, but I'm not too confident Egypt has their George Washington.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[davegravy]

You can't have a democracy and a precedent for simply removing elected leaders when you are not satisfied with the outcome.

I agreed at first.

But in theory such a system might be an improved one - if we can elect people based on their platforms and then axe them when their platform proves to be nothing but lies and deceit, we might eventually end up with elected leaders that do as they claim they will.

The problem, obviously, is doing it peacefully. Maybe if the Egyptians get a few more rounds of practice at this they'll get it down to a fine art and invent* the next form of government.

*this is how you know I'm a Civilization fan.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[msobkow]

Actually overstatement of the year. On both sides. The protests were not by millions of people on either side. There simply wasn't enough room for that many people in the space occupied by the protestors on either side of the fence.

Doubts emerge over Egypt's protester numbers

Re:So Much for Democracy

[jittles]

The problem is both are true. Morsi was the democratically elected leader, and he was setting if not himself up as a dictator permanent brotherhood rule.

Still unless someone can prove he violated Egypts new Constitution Morsi is the only legitimate leader of that nation. Its not know if Morsi's effort to marginalize opposition parties would have been effective enough to see him re-elected with a public wise to the danger/agenda he posed; it was however to duty of anyone who seriously wanted a democracy in Egypt to wait that long and find out.

This is sham; and long term I am confident it will prove harmful to reform. You can't have a democracy and a precedent for simply removing elected leaders when you are not satisfied with the outcome.

That is not true at all. California recalled and removed Governor Gray Davis. The people do not have to sit there and shrug their shoulders and say "Well we tried. Maybe next election." Does that mean that the military needs to step in? Well that depends. If Gray Davis refused to abdicate his position of governor, I would have been all for the California National Guard coming in there and removing him by force.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

We have an established democracy. Congress would immediately vote for impeachment and remove him from office with that kind of overwhelming sentiment. The problem is, Egypt is relying on an interim prime minister to facilitate the transition to a stable democracy and doesn't have a Legislative counterbalance to their executive. Seeing Morsi go was a seemed like the right thing to do, but I'm not too confident Egypt has their George Washington.

Uh, no they don't and no they won't. There have been numerous petitions and discussions regarding impeaching Obama for treason. Nothing will happen until the people get smart enough to clean house of the shitty career politicians. Look at where Clinton's impeachment went, and he was absolutely guilty of perjury.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you hint at it, but I have to add emphasis. The US is flawed in exactly the same way you show Egypt's flaws. Leaders in Media and Academia falsely preach to people things like "If you don't vote D or R you waste your vote". Results are skewed through propaganda and outright cheating. Lets not forget that the leader of the Republican Caucus in Iowa said on public radio "I don't care what the voters think, Ron Paul will not be on the ticket in Iowa". Lets not forget how numerous exit polls had him leading, causing unrest and investigations in numerous states.

I keep hoping someone some top brass in the US grow some hairy balls and arrest the treasonous bastards we currently have sitting in many offices.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck 'em. Religious institutions should not be in a position of political power.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you have been watching too much Fox News?

Fox News? It may be more 'conservative' (although even that is arguable), but it is owned in no small part by that Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal, and is therefore very much pro-Islamic, contrary to what you may think

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

We've seen examples of military safeguarding a slow but steady transition to democracy by enforcing secularism in a dictatorial way - Turkey is a prime example of this.

Only until one day the military makes the slightest slip, a radical Islamist comes to power in the name of democracy et voilà! The country is an autocratic Sunni state.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[shutdown -p now]

Except it doesn't seem to be working that way - Erdogan had to go real slow with creeping islamization of the country, and is still very far from an "autocratic Sunni state" - and even then he still has massive protests on his hands. It looks like the system is quite resilient. The role of military here is not to be the last and only barrier; it's to maintain a secular regime for long enough that it becomes ingrained in the political discourse of the country, such that, in a few generations, your average voter will feel uneasy about fundie religious parties and platforms.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[rahvin112]

That's a bit extreme. I'd expect him to be arrested for (whatever federal law applies), charged, tried and imprisoned for the rest of his life. If whatever he did wasn't illegal I would expect congress to impeach, the senate to try him for high crimes and then dismiss him from the presidency.

I believe in the rule of law and no one being above it. I don't want vigilante justice.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[rahvin112]

You are aware that the anti-Morsi protest in June was simultaneous in every city in the country right? It wasn't just the protestors in Cario at Tahir square. I've seen estimates from 14 million to nearly 20 million depending on how many little towns with 10000 people you count. These protests also happened under threats that Morsi would deploy the police and Army and fire into the crowds so I have no doubt some people stayed home for fear of being killed. They were some of the largest public demonstrations in the world if not the largest.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[thegarbz]

What if the law didn't apply to him because of an earlier legislative decree? What happened if the head of the police were on his side and put in power because of him, and the judges were also put in power by him, and the heads of congress were also put in power by him? What if all these people were part of the same group trying to obtain permanent and limitless power in the country?

I know these are wild and unlikely what-if scenarios but this is exactly what lead up these events in Egypt.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[DarkOx]

right smack in the middle of the ol' One Man, One Vote, One Time deal.

I agree that might very well have been the way things shook out. Still I think Egyptian's who are truly interested in democracy really needed to at least give going thru the next election cycle a try.

Because now NOTHING will convince the Islamic theocracy backers fair elections and an open society can work. In fact there is virtually no incentive for them to try violence first. The narrative for them will now and for at least the next generation or two be that democracy is a fraud, the infidel uses to keep them out of power.

Re:So Much for Democracy

[Immerman]

> Look at where Clinton's impeachment went, and he was absolutely guilty of perjury.

What I want to know was why he was even expected to answer such a question? I mean judicial trial or congressional shouldn't there be an accepted way to say "I refuse to answer the question because it's none of your fucking business" and have the questioner then be forced to justify its (at least potential) relevance?. If there was reason to believe Monica was a Russian plant whispering policy recommendations in his ear then maybe she would be relevant, otherwise what the hell does his choice of playmates have to do with being president?

Meanwhile I'm betting nobody in congress actually pushed hard for impeachment because the purpose was to create a strategic media circus, not actually make somebody pay for a crime when most everyone in the room is guilty of far worse. I mean what sort of horrible precedent would that set? Any one of them could be next. I mean think of the travesty that would be unfolding now if all these NSA representatives were actually held accountable for perjuring themselves before congress on a regular basis - so much progress towards tyranny could be lost, and for what?

Yet the US media downplay the body count

[msobkow]

Around the world, reports range from 80 to 120 dead.

Except in the US media, which claims only 15-20 dead.

Gotta protect the reputation of those "allies" to justify not calling the Egyptian situation what it is: a military coup.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[afidel]

A military coup that's going to lead to civil war most likely.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[phantomfive]

Wall Street Journal:Nearly 100 dead.
USA Today: Nearly 100 dead
CNN: 95-200 dead
NBC: At least 95 dead
Fox News: Nearly 100 dead

But don't let reality get in the way of your bizarre conspiracy theory.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[aliquis]

Democracy! It's good when you aren't voting on the muslims!

Though then again fuck all gods and their believers.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Chris Mattern]

Washington Post is reporting 42 dead confirmed at an aid station for Morsi supporters, 60 dead estimated by the Egyptian government, and over 2000 esimated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Where are you seeing 15-20?

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[simonbp]

NPR was reporting "at least a hundred dead" several hours ago. I think it's not the US media that is biased so much as you.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[binarylarry]

True, although the military stepped in because the elected officials were attempting to appoint themselves dictators for life.

If the US president declared himself Emperor of the United States, how much do you want to bet he'd quickly be placed in a military jail cell?

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[msobkow]

Only a few hours ago NBC was reporting only 15-20. The same with Fox. And NBC and ABC.

At least they seem to be correcting their stories.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[girlintraining]

Gotta protect the reputation of those "allies" to justify not calling the Egyptian situation what it is: a military coup.

Ah, I don't think it's the reputation of our "allies" we're worried about. I think it's our own ass, since we have a long history of supplying military weapons and no-strings-attached money by the pallet to Egypt. Hell, we used to supply weapons to Iran... though apparently people's memories are shorter than ever since the advent of the internet and people forgot about Reagan. Much of the militarization and violence in the middle east is directly due to us giving them those weapons. America follows the 34th Rule of Acquisition like any good Ferrengi would. Though right now the 98th and 125th could really use some attention...

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[girlintraining]

But don't let reality get in the way of your bizarre conspiracy theory.

From TFA: "Egyptâ(TM)s Health Ministry said 60 people died and 874 injured..."

A cursory glance at the timestamp on these stories provides a big clue as to what happened here, and the clue suggests "bizarre conspiracy theory" shouldn't be the conclusion drawn. The OP should be chastized for not RTFA, which is the most likely explanation, not chastized for wearing a tin foil hat, which is unlikely, though a popular personal attack these days.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Nidi62]

Hell, we used to supply weapons to Iran... though apparently people's memories are shorter than ever since the advent of the internet and people forgot about Reagan.

It was pretty well publicized several years ago that they were moving up the retirement of the F-14 and the manufacture of replacement parts due partly to the fact that Iran was the last nation besides us flying them, and they were getting spare parts to keep them in the air.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[fustakrakich]

We have a process of impeachment. A person can't go around declaring himself 'emperor' without a lot of assistance. Besides, the US has its own Taliban keeping the prisons full. Business is good.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[the eric conspiracy]

That's just wrong.

I did a Google news listing and the first item is USA Today reporting 'more than 100 dead'.

In the same group of stories NBC News and the Boston Herald are reporting 149 dead.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[girlintraining]

Ah yes, the slashdot mods are hating on the truth again.

"These Moderator Points Paid For By The Department of American Propaganda."

Sadly, the facts are not in favor of the moderators today. $1.2 billion a year has bought the egyptian military a lot of democracy! And finding out what Reagan did is just an google away. But hey mods... don't let your blind patriotism get in the way of a righteous down-modding. Afterall, being critical of your own government supporting re-directing billions to kill peaceful protesters is a very democratic thing to do... unlike, say, providing food stamps, which presently has a smaller budget than the money we're giving to Egypt right now to kill its own citizens.

-1, Truthful.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[phantomfive]

You are right, that is probably what happened, but the tin foil hat comes from this sentence: " Gotta protect the reputation of those "allies" to justify not calling the Egyptian situation what it is: a military coup." When you jump to a conclusion completely unsupported by the facts, that is a conspiracy theory.

(for example, you can't prove that aliens didn't kill JFK, but it's still a leap to conclude they did. Similarly, you can't prove the American media is somehow trying to cover for the president by lying about casualty numbers, but it's still a leap to conclude they did. There are many more likely explanations).

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[phantomfive]

Hopefully next time you won't be so quick to put on the tin-foil hat.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Applekid]

Only a few hours ago NBC was reporting only 15-20. The same with Fox. And NBC and ABC.

At least they seem to be correcting their stories.

The problem with the "always on" news cycle is that fact-checking isn't part of it. They all want to be first to report, so if it's wrong, who cares, we'll patch it later.

It's this kind of speculative journalism that gives conspiracy theorists fuel for the shadowy figures in smokey rooms trope.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[PhxBlue]

Washington Post is reporting 42 dead confirmed at an aid station for Morsi supporters, 60 dead estimated by the Egyptian government, and over 2000 esimated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sounds like the Muslim Brotherhood has outsourced its statistical analysis to the American Tea Party.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the reactions to other blatant violations of the constitution; there would probably be a few arrests of some small armed resistance groups and the president would continue on using that as an excuse to declare martial law.

The elections would be halted and the supreme court would rule you don't have grounds to file a lawsuit because you weren't the elected president.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[cervesaebraciator]

for example, you can't prove that aliens didn't kill JFK [...]

Smeg yeah, I can. This recently uncovered footage shows that the second shooter was human.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

A person can't go around declaring himself 'emperor' without a lot of assistance.

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

Granted, California is bizarro land, but not only can a person declare themselves Emperor, it seems to work out better than you'd think.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite how people keep bitching about how Slashdot's comment system doesn't allow for edits, deletions, or other forms of take-backs in the normal flow of conversations here, I've always felt that it encourages people to stop, think, review the facts, and make sure what they're saying is reasonably accurate before they irreversibly make asses out of themselves. For instance, spouting off Yet Another Anti-American Conspiracy Theory(tm) about a breaking news story whose reporting can be corrected if mistakes are made. You'd think you could stop and check if anything's changed in the reports since "a few hours ago" BEFORE you post, given a story like this CAN change quite rapidly as facts come in.

But, clearly I'm wrong. Clearly, Slashdot's stand-by-your-words policy of commenting doesn't stand a chance against people eagerly rushing in to make fools of themselves and sacrifice any reputation they might have just for the outside possibility of furthering their own nebulous agenda. Oh, well. At least they tried.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[h4rr4r]

Why not they support the same stuff.

I find it hilarious that the very people most worried about Sharia law coming to America actually want to impose it themselves.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

Not having accurate news accounts might have something to do with journalists being killed in this mess; perhaps I got that backwards.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[msobkow]

Tin foil hat?

For your information the other news sites around the world that I read had their facts straight HOURS before the US media did.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[msobkow]

And it's no secret that the US is one of the only countries in the world who refuse to call this coup a coup.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[stoploss]

A military coup that's going to lead to civil war most likely.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

I guess Egypt is on "ammo", then...

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[phantomfive]

Your conspiracy is that the US media is trying to cover for the statements of the President. It's unsupported by any evidence, which is why it's a conspiracy theory.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[HornWumpus]

Iran's F-14s got so little flying time they will be last F-14s that don't have cracked structures.

We (our techs) sabotaged them on our way out. They've been buying F-14 parts on the grey market and almost certainly being ripped off constantly.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[jandrese]

NPR is commie radio though, no true American would listen to it. Did you know that the majority of their funding doesn't come from commercial sources? How Unamerican is that? You practically have to have an act of congress to get them to put the correct spin on the news, unlike those patriots over in the commercial news world that bravely and heroically parrot whatever the party puts out in talking points.

Re: Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your personal bot-mods run out of points or something?

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Rakarra]

The problem with the "always on" news cycle is that fact-checking isn't part of it. They all want to be first to report, so if it's wrong, who cares, we'll patch it later.

It's this kind of speculative journalism that gives conspiracy theorists fuel for the shadowy figures in smokey rooms trope.

Oh, if only I hadn't posted a joke on this topic and can't use my mod points on it anymore...

Someone else please mod the parent up! Being 'first' is far more important in the journalism world than being right. That, and filling airtime with talking on the story du jour, even when you don't know anything and nothing has changed.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Rakarra]

Washington Post is reporting 42 dead confirmed at an aid station for Morsi supporters, 60 dead estimated by the Egyptian government, and over 2000 esimated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Where are you seeing 15-20?

It's almost like the body count has gone up over time as they counted the dead!

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I thought that name sounded familiar. I was aware of his currency which given its dates and fairly wide acceptance in the SF area at the time was a historical curiosity since confederate and union currency also circulated at that time but his currency was never discounted compared to gold unlike either of the others. My particular section of the numismatist world is odd paper currency (I have lots of historical curiosities that I have collected mostly invasion or war time currencies) and really wish I could afford one of his "Imperial Government of Norton I" bills but they are a bit hard to come by anyway (I would be in a lot of trouble with the wife if I bought one).

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[GameboyRMH]

Hey now, there are numerous subtle differences.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[msobkow]

Other than the evidence of the low numbers they were reporting.

But I guess that doesn't count. All hail the US media for it's accuracy and fair reporting.

Not!

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[msobkow]

The real problem is that modern media (not just US) edit their stories to update them, don't flag them as updated, and most certainly don't indicate what has been updated. Hence you get people thinking the story always read the way it does now, and deciding that people who flagged the original bad reporting are "trolls" or liars.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[GodfatherofSoul]

I watched news all morning and I saw the 95 number quoted on 3 different MSM sources.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really blame people for questioning MSM in my opinion. There are years of misinformation and FUD people begin to sift through when they realize how corrupt the US has become. Are there reasons why MSM would want lower numbers? Probably, because if its declared a coup we can no longer provide billions of dollars that the US does not have in US aid to Egypt. Is it something that they would have difficulty fudging? Yes, it would be harder for them to fudge these, so I believe you are correct that it's a timing thing.

In defense of the top you responded to when I woke up this morning all 3 main TV propaganda outlets were saying 10-20 dead. The numbers moved up a few hours later to match other sources. None of them are informing viewers about why the US does not want to call it a coup, nor will they. Hell, by the time I get home I'll be surprised if they have not taken the opportunity to use it as drama for security theater.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries, people besides the shill-bots get points too.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[wagnerrp]

Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be explained by incompetence.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[HornWumpus]

Is an editor putting her most incompetent reporter on a story malice?

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[phantomfive]

Yeah, if you want to complain about the accuracy, then you're basically right.

Re:Yet the US media downplay the body count

[thegarbz]

Fact checking isn't the issue. It's purely the speed at which information is disseminated from the scene and the speed at which people absorb it.

If I go out and brutally murder one person at lunchtime and the first to report media reports it, the viewer on his lunchbreak will hear that I killed a person.
If I then move on and start killing other people in a string of attacks the same station will report later that I caused a massacre, the evening viewer will hear about this.

Tomorrow both of these people will meet at work, one talking about some random killer, and the other talking about a bloodlust fuelled massacre all because they turned on the TV at different times.

e.g. When the world trade centre went down I went home at the end of the day thinking that one of the buildings collapsed. I did a complete double take when I saw both were missing because I caught the morning news before the second one fell and then had to go to work.

How is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this appropriate for Slashdot? Don't we get enough of this stuff through "normal" news channels?

Re:How is this news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's stuff that matters. And we don't get a whole commenting-moderating-metamoderating threaded forum system through the "normal" news channels. The commenting-moderating-metamoderating threaded forum system is really the only thing that keeps me here instead of on other "social media."

Who modded this crap up? Maybe it's time I spend an hour or two metamoderating. Come to think of it, I haven't done that in a while. For the record, in true Slashdot tradition, I haven't RTFA'd since I'll hear about TFA through the "normal" news channels later tonight.

- Vel

Re:How is this news for nerds?

[couchslug]

Yes we do, but Slashdot hasn't been News For Nerds for a long time because the new model gets more revenue.

Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

To find how closely the US/UK/Israel are jointly involved.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll

Whoops!! I forgot.. The truth is not allowed here... So sorry... Didn't mean to offend the little generals.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh! I'll play!

Israel has a peace agreement with Egypt, and is its neighbor. Egypt is Egypt. so, 1?

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[phantomfive]

Ironically, because Obama has refused to take sides and declare support for either group, both sides seem to believe he is supporting the other side.

US/UK/Israel want stability in the region. If they were in control, it would not be unstable right now.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

US/UK/Israel want stability in the region.

Complete rubbish... destabilization is the intent. In their eyes, few things are more dangerous than a stable, powerful, independent Arab state. Take a look at any before and after invasion pictures of those countries before spouting such nonsense.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[phantomfive]

few things are more dangerous than a stable, powerful, independent Arab state.

You don't make it sound stable........

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

'Stable', to the US and Europe (and Russia and China), means compliant and docile...

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[phantomfive]

So do you consider Iran to be stable?

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

It would be much more so without the outside interference it is currently experiencing And despite all of that, it is not doing nearly as badly as the propagandists would have you believe. Compare the number of car bombings and other acts of widespread violence if you don't want to believe me. It is by intent the outsiders are destabilizing the region. It is not accidental. I don't know about you, but I measure intent by the results, not by false declarations of your politicians and mass media.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[phantomfive]

So you don't consider their regional politics to be destabilizing?

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

It is now, and been driven by outsiders for a very long time. 'Regional' politics is a scam. The only reason the Syrian war has carried on for this long is because of the arms dealers, and idiots running around screaming that something must be done. The continuing occupation of Palestine would not be possible without US/UK assistance. The Iraq story could not be more obvious. Libya, Syria, and Egypt, the same. It is another repeat of 1960s and 70s Southeast Asia (where more than 6 - 8 million were massacred) and Central/South America. The great powers have simply moved the conflicts off of their own soil, and found enormous profits in doing so. You need to get this out of your head that it is anything more than business. That's what war is, and has always been.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[HornWumpus]

We started the shea/sunni war, 1000 years before our nation was formed.

I gotta admit, getting 'them' to fight each other is an ideal outcome. They will need money so bad they will completely blow off the OPEC limits and hopefully de-ball their population (like the frogs did in the Napoleonic wars).

Reagan did a great job, keeping Iraq and Iran stalemated.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[hazah]

It's not just their eyes. It's in the eyes of any sane person. To suggest that a powerful independent arab state is not dangerous is disingenious. Islam does not have room for anything but world conquest.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

Islam does not have room for anything but world conquest.

Yeah, but the Christians are a lot better at it, even using nukes to do it.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[Rakarra]

Troll

Whoops!! I forgot.. The truth is not allowed here... So sorry... Didn't mean to offend the little generals.

Probably because it was pointlessly off topic? The original poster WAS trolling.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[Rakarra]

US/UK/Israel want stability in the region.

Complete rubbish... destabilization is the intent. In their eyes, few things are more dangerous than a stable, powerful, independent Arab state. Take a look at any before and after invasion pictures of those countries before spouting such nonsense.

Israel was so much happier when Mubarak was in charge of Egypt.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[hazah]

I did not say *anything* about christians. And I don't care who's better. Both are atrocious, uncivilized and antiintellectual to the core.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[phantomfive]

The causes of war are three, ideology, fear, and greed; you're only focusing on one of them.

This war is between regional sects that were fighting long before the US existed.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

I am not singling out the US. You people are just using that to divert the discussion. The money men use ideology, fear, and greed to perpetuate their trade.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

If you bother to follow the money, you will find that it is precisely the topic. We're just not supposed to say those things in 'polite' company.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[phantomfive]

Well, you understand one of the motivations well enough. Lets see if you can figure out the other two.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[shilly]

This sort of fact-free bollocks and imperialist mindset just drives me nuts. Of course outside interference causes problems.... but this assumption that people in the Middle East have no ability to cause or influence events of their own accord is just, as I say, imperialism by another name. It's also obvious horseshit, which frankly appears to be driven by a desire to pin all the evil in the world onto the US, the West more generally, and corporate power. This simply causes you to turn a blind eye to ideology and fear, as others have said, and leads to wilfully ignoring the capacity of people in the Middle East to commit their own acts of evil (and good!) all by their very own selves.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

I can always leave it to a Brit to tell us what imperial means, considering they have been the most bloodthirsty imperialists over the last 300 years and counting, and I can always depend on them to make the mast adamant denials..

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[shilly]

Bzzt, wrong. I am indeed British, but I'm also Jewish. When my compatriots' ancestors were busy colonising, my ancestors were huddled in shtetls in Mittel Europa. But hey, if the inaccurate ad hominem attacks are making you feel better about yourself, go ahead, knock yourself out. They're no more stupid than your original post, and I can see why someone in your position would need the comfort.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

I am indeed British, but I'm also Jewish.

Woo hoo! Double whammy! For sure I'm getting an unbiased viewpoint now.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[shilly]

For a stouthearted defender against imperialism you sure do sound a teensy bit racist. Not to mention hypocritical.

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[fustakrakich]

I like your nick. It seems particularly appropriate...

Re:Play the Kevin Bacon game

[shilly]

Oooh look! An ad hominem attack, to go with the racism! You appear to have all the vile traits a human being could ask for!

Honesty

[Anonymous Coward]

The interim President has also declared an indefinite state of emergency,...

Why don't they just come out and say, "I'm dictator now. Suck it."

Yeah I know, there are plenty of twits who actually think it's tempory.

Re:Honesty

[binarylarry]

It was temporary last time (too temporary, I guess).

Democracy is a difficult choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Egypt is learning in a very painful way that democracy has unintended results for the people (military and big business) traditionally used to getting everything they want. This is why Turkey is cutting its military leadership off at the knees and everyone else is getting military-sponsored governments.

Should have left Morsi in power

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have left Morsi in power to implement Sharia law as his party wanted to.

Egypt has nothing to over the world apart from tourism and once foreigners stop going there over fears of the extreme conservatism or being subjugated, their economy would have collapsed and the problem would solve itself.

Re:Should have left Morsi in power

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing at all! oh, apart from the Suez Canal...

Re:Should have left Morsi in power

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have left Morsi in power to implement Sharia law as his party wanted to.

Egypt has nothing to over the world apart from tourism and once foreigners stop going there over fears of the extreme conservatism or being subjugated, their economy would have collapsed and the problem would solve itself.

And that "solution" would be worse and more violent that what's going on now.

You got modded up for that tripe? Let "their economy ... collapse"?

What kind of sane society wants that? As bad as the power-that-be in Egypt may or may not be, they're not batshit insane enough to do what you suggest.

Re:Should have left Morsi in power

[Anonymous Coward]

Their economy did collapse, and the problem is in the process of "solving itself".

Re:Should have left Morsi in power

[Anonymous Coward]

easily remedied

Yay democracy.

[girlintraining]

This is democracy in action. No, really. You think jackbooted thugs roaming the streets freely without resistance is democracy? Democracy is bloody. It's violent. This is how it's supposed to be when the government decides to arm itself and consider its own people the enemy, potential subversives, terrorists, etc. The will of the people is never so clearly shown when they're being crushed underneath tanks and there's bodies in the streets and floating down the rivers.

Of course... they're losing. Apparently all those weapons and support we've been shipping overseas has found a use: Bringing democracy to other countries. (-_-) Now I'm not suggesting we get involved (US State Department; I'm looking at you and your comical avoidance of the word 'coup')... just that if you zoom in on those protesters you're going to see a lot of signs on both sides angry at America... and there may be good reason for that, and you know, maybe we should take responsibility for the role we've played in this.

Ah, who am I kidding -- keep the funding coming guys! This is great TV!

Tyranny of the majority

[AmiMoJo]

The non-Muslims are divided into many smaller groups so can't form a cohesive opposition to the Muslim majority. The Muslims are well organized and it's easy for their imams to tell everyone to vote for the same guy.

What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? The people getting attacked are the pro-Islamists (e.g., Morsi supports; take not of which party Morsi belonged to).

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the standard response here is "If you don't like it, move."

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Support a pro US Military dictatorship?

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Billly Gates]

You do know the majority of Egyptians oppose Morsi? The elections were setup in a way where a former Marbarak henchman vs a Morsi were your only 2 votes. They voted agaisnt marbarek more than voted for Morsi. Then Morsi gave himself god like powers and dissolved parliment.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, in some alternate reality where the Christian majority were being persecuted by a unified Muslim minority, your post would make total sense.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[ikhider]

As opposed to what, voting for what TV tells you?

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[ameen.ross]

What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

Storm peaceful protesters, killing dozens, if not hundreds. Right?

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[HeckRuler]

Straight man answer: You have, or form, a constitution which lays down the basic rights that apply to everyone. You reason out to the majority that they might be on the receiving end of the stick some day and these rules will protect them as much as it limits them. And it's good for society and all that shit. Then you establish a rule of law where the powerful will still be punished for breaking the law. *cough*NSA's Clapper lying to congress*cough*.

That's how, you know, it's supposed to go. In theory. ...It's beautiful to dream, isn't it?

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro? Amateurs, all of 'em!

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, in some alternate reality where the Christian majority were being persecuted by a unified Muslim minority, your post would make total sense.

I believe the word you're looking for is jihad.

It seems to exist in this reality, unfortunately for civilization.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Guppy06]

You're conflating "Muslims" with "Islamists."

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-Muslims - namely Copts - are 10% of Egypt's population, so whether they're united or not hardly makes any difference. Egypt's Muslims are pretty much united in their hatred of both Copts and Israel, but as Debbie Schlussel often points out, the Copts are as bad in their Judeophobia as are the Muslims.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Storm peaceful protesters, killing dozens, if not hundreds. Right?

You definition of "peaceful protesters" is a bit off...

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

He was talking about the voting.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

peaceful protesters AAHAHAHAHAHA, joke of the week.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[couchslug]

"What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?"

Kill as many of them as possible and work for fragmentation of the country. ENEMIES don't need to share dirt.

The former Republic of Yugoslavia is a model for what should happen to all these fractious countries. Break them up and they will be too weak to cause much problem.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[MightyMartian]

Anti-semitism has a very long history in Egypt, dating back to at least Roman times. There were anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria in the 1st century.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[dkleinsc]

it's easy for their imams to tell everyone to vote for the same guy

... and that may or may not translate into actual votes. Just because a religious leader tells a believer of that religion to do something doesn't mean the believer actually does so. For proof of that, consider that the vast majority of Catholics in the US and Europe use birth control against the express wishes of their religious leaders.

What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

You establish and enforce fundamental rules saying that there is no political authority that can do that legally. The First Amendment in the US serves this purpose. The Egyptian constitution is more contradictory on that point: Article 2 says Islam is the official religion, but Articles 4, 6, and 11 are all aimed at preserving religious freedom.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[hazah]

And correctly so. These are one and the same, for there is no Muslim that is not an Islamist. Islam does not allow you to choose. It is to rule all aspects of your life and conduct. It dictates conquest. It dictates subgegation of us all.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[HornWumpus]

Most of their borders were set by drunken Englishmen.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[hazah]

Pointing out actual tenets of the religion is hardly bait for a flame-war. If the truth is uncomfortable to hear then you are welcome to shut your ears and stick your head in the sand.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, in some alternate reality where the Christian majority were being persecuted by a unified Muslim minority, your post would make total sense.

Try the Philippines! Mindanao in particular.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely! There is no such term as 'Islamist' or 'Islamism' - these are all Western constructs to try & fit an Islamic peg in a Christian hole. Nor is there any delineation between politics and religion in Islam - as hazah points out, Islam is a complete system for how one lives, and that's dictated by the Qur'an and Sunnah. And Jihad is one of the central tenets of Islam that is mandated by both of those, not just the 'Islamists'.

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

While I understand your sentiment, the influence of religious leaders in the west is far less than that in the middle east.

Mind you, having been to Egypt a few times, even the muslims weren't particularly zealous in their faith...they used to pay us to buy Johnny Walker for them at the duty free shop ;o)

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[dkleinsc]

While I understand your sentiment, the influence of religious leaders in the west is far less than that in the middle east.

In Egypt, roughly 51% of the country voted for Muslim Brotherhood candidates. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously-based party that is heavily endorsed by imams and other religious leaders, as you correctly point out, and has the explicit goal of using religious law as the basis of secular law.

In the United States, roughly 48% of the country voted for Republican candidates. The Republican Party is a largely religiously-based party that is heavily endorsed by evangelical pastors and other religious leaders, and many of its candidates have the explicit goal of using their religious law as the basis of secular law.

How much of a difference is there, really?

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[shilly]

This truly is a case of US exceptionalism among Western countries, though. There are no other Western nations with a party so overtly religious (not even, ironically, the CDU in Germany).

Re:Tyranny of the majority

[dave420]

Get a dictionary, you idiot. The two are not the same, hence there being different words with different meanings. I assume it helps your mind to conflate the two, when you are railing against people simply because their religious beliefs are different to yours, that it gives you some comfort that you're not actually a racist nutter, just simply trying to "help" the world. Unfortunately, you are a racist nutter, and you are damaging not only the world, but those around you, and those you purport to love. Grow up. Learn. Think.

This is TRAGIC but..

[dryriver]

The country as a whole would have been far worse off with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge - for, say, a whole decade. If Egypt is to stay secular, and remain/become a modern country, it is imperative that the country doesn't fall into the hands of the theo-conservatives. So while the deathtoll is tragic, the country would - in the long run - be infinitely, infinitely worse off if governed by the Muslim Brotherhood... I hope that things settle down in Egypt, and that the country's shortlived democracy experiment resumes, and works out better this time. My 2 cents.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[ikhider]

They got voted in, so you have to deal with it. Your ilk voted for Bush for TWO terms. Pot calling the kettle black. 'nuff said.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[ashvagan]

and you saw that in your magic 8 ball? what does your 8 ball say about Red Sox winning this season? Some people are just amazing when it comes to assumptions about the future.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you seriously suspect that this crackdown will work? Mubarak spent the better part of his time in office flexing his (ample) willingness to exercise 'emergency powers' and a bit of the old extralegal detention and torture trying to get rid of them, and look how successful that wasn't.

Once in power, the Brotherhood turned out to be as incompetent as they were autocratic, so their charm wore off a bit; but several decades of steady state violence didn't keep them from being the best prepared outfit when the original voting happened.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but lets not kid ourselves that this is a democracy if we throw out the winners because we don't like them. You can vote as long as its for the correct party.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Billly Gates]

No the majority of Americans voted for Gore

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Issarlk]

They got voted in and promptly tried getting unlimited power. To make democracy stronger, no doubt.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[GLMDesigns]

The analogy would be if Bush literally suspended the constitution and unilaterally tried to install a new one without going through constitutional procedures.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mjr167]

As much you dislike Bush, comparing him to Islamic fundamentalists is a bit far fetched. The reality is that the vast majority of American's are actually very well off (compared to the masses of Egypt and other countries in that region) and Bush did very little to change that. Even when the economy 'collapsed' we didn't have even close to the kinds of problems Egypt is having right now.

Eventually people are going to have to realize that Bush/Obama was not the great Satan; he did not doom us as a nation; other presidents before him have committed equally heinous acts, and life doesn't actually suck that badly in the US. People setting stuff on fire and getting shot for political/theological disputes is the exception rather than the norm here.

Yes, there is room for improvement, but there will always be room for improvement. We will never have utopia for the simple reason that my version of utopia is different from yours so we will end up with some sludge of a compromise in which no one is happy.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Trepidity]

Yeah, the worry is "one man, one vote, one time", i.e. a party wins free and fair elections and then promptly abolishes democracy and installs themselves permanently in power. Or until someone overthrows them.

In the Muslim Brotherhood's case, that worry looked more than hypothetical, since Morsi attempted several times to rule by decree, and sort of succeeded at least once. It was not hard to guess what his plan was.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[the_one(2)]

The problem is that now the dead protestors become martyrs and gain support.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing we don't tolerate that sort of crap in the states. Oh, wait...

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mcgrew]

The reality is that the vast majority of American's

are uneducated. In history as well as third grade punctuation.

Name another President that started with a budget surplus and ended with the biggest deficit in history, started TWO wars at the same time, and went into office in a boom and ended in a terrible economy?

Yes, Hoover went in during a boom and ended in a depression, other Presidents have had similar failures, but if there were any but Bush that had such a bad run I must have missed class that day. Bush was certainly the worst President in my 61 year lifetime. I thought I'd never see worse than Carter but Bush beat him hands down in his terrible stewardship.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Anonymous Coward]

The country as a whole would have been far worse off with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge - for, say, a whole decade. If Egypt is to stay secular, and remain/become a modern country, it is imperative that the country doesn't fall into the hands of the theo-conservatives. So while the deathtoll is tragic, the country would - in the long run - be infinitely, infinitely worse off if governed by the Muslim Brotherhood... I hope that things settle down in Egypt, and that the country's shortlived democracy experiment resumes, and works out better this time. My 2 cents.

Egypt is not secular - never has been since the Arab conquest. Neither has any other Muslim country, except perhaps Pahlevi Iran. Oh, and currently, the ex Soviet 'stans'

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mjr167]

Lincoln had half the country in an open, armed rebellion that resulted in far more devastating consequences to the economic stability of the country. His successor then decided the best way to deal with the newly re-unified nation was to impose crippling sanctions upon the southern states that many would argue the south never fully recovered from.

Regardless of if you thought the Civil War was "Right" or "Wrong" morally, the simple fact is it was the bloodiest and most devastating war we (the US) have EVER fought. The WWs may have killed more people, but Europe took the brunt of the infrastructure damage and civilian casualties.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[MightyMartian]

Turkey is at least nominally secular, and it was certainly very intentionally so when it was founded out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Bing Tsher E]

Dis-proven in multiple studies conducted by independent Media organizations. But keep on dreaming. The Tree ain't ever gonna be prez.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Bing Tsher E]

I thought I'd never see worse than Carter but Bush beat him hands down

Don't worry. Obama is working on topping both of them.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Gavagai80]

Both of you are wrong. A 48.4% plurality of Americans voted for Gore, 47.9% for Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Anonymous Coward]

With the current Justice and Development Party(AKP) regime, its becoming more and more of a islamist state. Islamists -unfortunately- always have a way of winning

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Gavagai80]

Hardly. The more accurate analogy is if the supreme court nullified and dissolved congress and blocked the president from action, and the president responded by bypassing the court unconstitutionally. Technically anything a supreme court does is constitutional by definition, but the Egyptian supreme court was full of Mubarak appointees with an obvious agenda to stop the government, which they pursued by forcibly dissolving parliament.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[GLMDesigns]

OK. Missed that first step. That does change things.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[CrimsonAvenger]

Name another President that started with a budget surplus

Bush did NOT start with a budget surplus.

Contrary to whatever you have heard about Clinton, the National Debt went UP EVERY SINGLE YEAR he was in office. Note that the last time the National Debt went down was in the '50s.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Secularity in Turkey is nowhere to be found except for a handful of words in the constitution (whose worth has been a fraction of toilet paper in the last 30-40 years). Especially in the last 5 years or so, it has become a Sunni state with little to no concern over (or respect for, for that matter) the existence of other beliefs.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[Anonymous Coward]

'Was' is more like it - under Kemal. Its secularism has been unraveling ever since Erdogan came to power.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[rahvin112]

The only thing Lincoln did to cause an armed rebellion was to get elected. The teapot was already boiling over, it just needed the trigger for it blow up. Lincoln became that trigger because he opposed slavery but had he not we STILL would have ended in civil war at a later date. Slavery had to end and it wasn't going to end at anything but the point of a rifle.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[rahvin112]

The Bush tax credits were predicated on the assumption of future surpluses that never materialized. Rather than be prudent and wait for the surpluses to materialize Bush reacted and got his filibuster proof Republican congress to pass huge tax cuts. About 50% of the ensuing run up in debt is attributed to those tax cuts.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[shilly]

Given that most anti-gummint types declare themselves pro-business, it's amazing how few seem to comprehend the difference between deficits and debt. It's really not that difficult: you run a surplus if your annual income exceeds your annual expenditure; if it's the other way round, you have a deficit. If a country were a government, this would be profit (or loss). It is possible to be a profitable country and still owe money to others, just as it's possible to be a profitable company and owe money to a bank, or be a solvent individual and owe money to the bank in the form of a mortgage. You can argue about how much debt a country ought to hold, but conflating deficit and debt is just .... stupid.

CBO figures show quite clearly that the Clinton administration ran a surplus in its final three years (and also in 2001 due to momentum):
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43904-Historical%20Budget%20Data-2.xls
They also give the lie to your assertion that the national debt went up every year he was in office. In fact, debt fell in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. By 2001, it was down to 3.3tn, having peaked at 3.8tn in 1997. That was a fall from 48.4% of GDP in 1996 to 32.5% of GDP in 2001 -- 16% points in 5 years. I wish I was paying my mortgage off that quickly.

Then Bush came along and fucked it all up. Royally:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/

Honestly, I see no point in your deluding yourself about economic history. Get over the cognitive dissonance and learn to accept the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mjr167]

And you can make the exact same argument involving the economy and political instability in the middle east. Or do you claim that had Bush not been president 9/11 would not have happened? Had Bush not been president the deregulation of the banking industry started by Clinton would not have caused the banks to go nuts and crash the economy?

You speak of the civil war as if it were a certainty, completely unavoidable. There are actually historians that disagree with that and claim that industrialization was ending slavery without the war. There is also the minor issue that war was not actually fought over slavery. It was an issue, but not the primary one by a long shot. The southern states seceded because they did not like the mandates coming down from the federal government and the feds were imposing tariffs that were hurting their trade relationships with Europe. Lincoln went to war in order to preserve the union. Slavery was not actually outlawed until well after the war began.

You still fail to redress Johnson's punishing of the south. There was a president (and congress) who intentionally set out to impose hardships on a significant set of the population.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mcgrew]

Or do you claim that had Bush not been president 9/11 would not have happened? Had Bush not been president the deregulation of the banking industry started by Clinton would not have caused the banks to go nuts and crash the economy?

It would depend on who was President at the time. The FBI ignored its own agents who had warned of it. Had the FBI had a different director those clues may not have been ignored. As to the bankers, that was 100% Clinton's veto-proof congress' fault, and I doubt a different post-Clinton President could have done much... but an eloquent enough anti-wallstreet President might have swayed them (although I'm doubtful).

You still fail to redress Johnson's punishing of the south. There was a president (and congress) who intentionally set out to impose hardships on a significant set of the population.

I think historians agree that both Presidents named Johnson sucked. The postwar Johnson might have been as bad as Bush; Bush's Congress sucked, too.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mjr167]

I'm glad we are in agreement :) You can't blame one man for the world falling apart and none of our presidents are actually evil.

Grant was another pretty terrible president. Next time you start thinking about how terrible Bush or Obama is, compare him to Grant, Harding, Buchanan, and Nixon. We actually have a LOT of terrible presidents to choose from.

Re:This is TRAGIC but..

[mcgrew]

Next time you start thinking about how terrible Bush or Obama is, compare him to Grant, Harding, Buchanan, and Nixon.

Well, except Nixon I only know of those presidents from books. Nixon was bad; I voted for his election and against his reelection. Actually, IMO the only two Presidents in my lifetime who didn't suck were Eisenhower and Clinton, and I could be wrong about Eisenhower, since I was five months old when he was elected and only eight when he left office (and Clinton was far from perfect; Ruby Ridge and Waco). Kennedy and Ford weren't in office long enough to make much of a judgement about their efforts (Ford was the only President to never win a national election).

Another really bad President was Coolige, and my knowledge of him only comes from a history class and its textbook, and what my grandmother told me (she was born in 1903). The history books won't tell you what she said -- the roaring twenties only roared for the rich, everyone else had it very rough. The books do agree with her that it was Coolidge that caused the depression. And Grandma was a life-long Republican who voted against FDR in every election he was on the ballot.

And Israel is dancing in the steets

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't like Pharaoh. Never did. Never have. Never will. And I thank you for your support.

the morsi supporters are supporters of the muslim

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case the rest of you have NOT heard:

The Egyptian Army is fighting against the establishment of a Muslim Theocratic state headed by Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood is attempting to establish Sharia in violation of the human rights of all Egyptians.

  Time for some truth around here..

It's an OK start......

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an OK start, but if they are going to stabilize the situation they are going to have to wipe all of the Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood. They need to step it up.

And oh, btw, thank our lucky stars that the Military is taking one from Turkey and not let these RETRO humans take over, they are mindless ANIMALS! Given an opportunity they will bring the whole region in full scale war.

Re:It's an OK start......

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because it worked so good for the Romans getting rid of the Christians.

Re:It's an OK start......

[HornWumpus]

Worked for Charles Martel.

It was a coup against a coup

[Anonymous Coward]

Morsi executed his own coup when he granted himself dictatorial powers. That, combined with the fact he was a corrupt and colossal failure who engendered a popular uprising against him, justified the army removing him from power.

Morsi's "democracy" was of the same sort that blessed vast swathes of post-colonial Africa in the 1960s and 70s: One man, one vote, once, followed by brutal dictatorship. Now at least Egypt has a slim chance of having something resembling a real democracy. Under Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood cronies, there was none.

Re:It was a coup against a coup

[Nidi62]

Now at least Egypt has a slim chance of having something resembling a real democracy. Under Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood cronies, there was none.

That is predicated on the Egyptian military actually giving up their power after the coup to restore democracy, which they have so far been unwilling to do. Part of the problem is that the Egyptian military can look at Turkey, where the military has a very strong presence in the government. There have really been no indications that the military plans to give up power at this point.

Re:It was a coup against a coup

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about democracy in Egypt - or indeed any other Muslim country - is that the people don't believe in pluralism - be it religious, political or whatever. As a result, democracy is just one more game of one-upsmanship designed to get one's particular group into power.

Take Iraq. Anyone think the Shias there were or are about democracy? The only reason they supported it is that they are 60% of the population. But other than that, they've been pretty happy to persecute Chaldean and Assyrian Christians, who've fled to Syria, and are now fleeing to Lebanon. They would have been perfectly happy to have had their own Assad, had they been a minority, like their Alawite brothers in Syria.

Egypt won't be a democracy - not in the real sense of the word. Copts will continue to be second class citizens, regardless of who's in power, while Judeophobic sentiments will continue to rule the roost in Cairo. It didn't exist under Mubarak, it didn't exist under Morsi, and it won't under anyone else, because they're just not the 'live and let live' type.

Re:It was a coup against a coup

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's a new problem to solve, if they don't. Currently the problem is Morsi and his followers.

Re:It was a coup against a coup

[shutdown -p now]

Part of the problem is that the Egyptian military can look at Turkey, where the military has a very strong presence in the government.

In Turkey, at least, they keep away from day to day governance, and most political decisions other than those that directly affect the political system itself (e.g. forcibly suppressing attempts to turn country into an Islamic republic). It's a far better model than either Islamic theocracy disguised as a republic, a la Iran, or an outright military dictatorship like what used to be the case in Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

Re:It was a coup against a coup

[Anonymous Coward]

And who are they going to give up power to? When they deposed Morsi they made the chief justice of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adli Mansour, acting president, but until a new government is elected they don't really have another option. And they willingly gave up power before when Morsi was democratically elected and they didn't depose him until there were huge protests calling for Morsi to step down or be removed.

Re:It was a coup against a coup

[Anonymous Coward]

The military presence in the government has ended in the last few years, resulting in many life sentences being handed out last week* (obviously with no respect to due process and "justice" whatsoever but, well, this is politics). Part of the problem is that the Egyptian military can look at Turkey, where some Islamist bunch came to power and promptly cleared the government of the residue from the coups a few decades ago. They surely don't want that happening to them, so death for the Islamists!

*: the case I'm referring to is called "Ergenekon". It started out as a crusade against Gladio-like structures and became the McCarthyism of Turkey.

Turkey is cutting off its military leadership...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in order to impose an oppressive one-party Islamic state free of Turkey's traditional checks and balances. Not an improvement.

When will the US people oust their gov?

[future assassin]

Only 1 person revealed what the NSA was doing out of 100's knowing about it yet people say the military and police wouldn't go against the US public is they were ordered to.

Re:When will the US people oust their gov?

[CKW]

Yeah, there is a massive amount of historical evidence that people will "go with the crowd" and it's rare, really rare, to see someone sacrifice even a modecum of their ... time let alone personal safety/comfort, even if it's just theoretical acceptance of a risk ... to help defend what they think is important. It's too easy to come up with excuses to not act*.

  - Things aren't too bad yet
  - Other people are working on it
  - I'll do something when the time is right
  - Well it's not as important as I thought
  - I'm not potentially sacrificing my career or even a small part of my liberty for this, simply "holding my opinion" is my contribution to "resisting".
  - My contribution is too small to matter. No one will listen.
  - Secret dark forces we cannot fight are arrayed against us**.
  - etc

(*) And I'm Including myself here. I haven't written a letter to anyone yet about any of the serious things that have happened lately.
(**) A huge fraction of people are conspiracy theorists, and they ALWAYS pull this out of the hat when you ask them "omg that's horrible, what are you personally doing about it".)

Re:When will the US people oust their gov?

[CKW]

I should say, I'm commenting on the "only 1 out of 100's" aspect -- not on the "oust the gov" ala revolution.

Rather -- we haven't even begun to use the peaceful means out society provides to correct things and enact change. It sometimes REQUIRES us to become involved with the process.

( Dang it, when will slashdot let me edit a post? Get with the times man. )

News for nerds?

[Okian Warrior]

Usually news stories on this site have at least a faint aroma of tech relevance.

Certain select stories are of such a high importance that everyone wants to talk about them and they appear on this site despite having no relevance to the major purpose.

That's fine, really it is. But I have to ask, where is the dividing line? Will we be seeing articles on Syria? More than 100 people are killed there on a regular basis. Fourty-four were killed in a mosque in Nigeria the other day. Is that significant? A white-ish guy shot an innocent black kid who was definitely not bashing the white-guy's head into the pavement - is that relevant?

I found this very interesting Third Amendment lawsuit (yes, Third amendment) and didn't submit because it was offtopic.

I'm not saying that world events are not important, and this one is pretty high on the importance scale. It's just that I avoid regular news sites and frequent this one because it saves time. Yes, I can skip articles - but note that I can skip articles in Google News and Reddit as well.

I can't find the link, but I remember a chart of "Slashdot readership" that showed a general decline over the last several years.

This leade to a simple question: Is Slashdot better for reporting generic news items, or should it be more about "News for Nerds"?

Re:News for nerds?

[MightyMartian]

You could, you know, not open the story.

Re:News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a judgement call by the editors. I have no problem with that.

I remember Slashdot got over 1000 posts for the Zimmerman (T. Martin) verdict, only a handful of which were of the "How is this News for Nerds?" variety. It would be a stretch to say that Zimmerman/Martin had much to do with IT or science, although you could always dredge up something (analysis of the video and audio, ballistics evidence, etc).

Re:News for nerds?

[PhxBlue]

Stuff. That. Matters.

Re:News for nerds?

[Nemyst]

Slashdot most certainly shouldn't be so isolationist as to avoid talking about anything non-tech. I think it can be interesting to have discussions about non-tech news with the very tech/science focused community here, which is very different from most other news sites.

Re:News for nerds?

[Scorch_Mechanic]

Very much this. People who complain that this or that news story isn't "news for nerds" are forgetting that the "nerds" who read Slashdot often provide more insightful commentary than any other group of private citizen commentators, and certainly more insight than what the majority of the 24 hour news-cycle organizations. Furthermore, because Slashdot has global readership we get commentary from people outside the United States. I love reading slashdot comments for the same reasons I like listening to the BBC on the radio on my local public radio station (KQED), because I hear fresh viewpoints that originate not in this country.
 
Slashdot's readership is one of the largest college educated and tech focused groups out there. It's clear to me that the people who read these terrible story summaries and comment here are frightfully smart, and it would be a terrible waste not to capitalize on the group intelligence present here whenever possible.

Re:News for nerds?

[Velex]

This is "stuff that matters." /. has a mature commenting-moderating-metamoderating threaded forum system (despite its noted failures such as UTF-8 support and WTF the mobile interface is supposed to be). I come here for the debates.

I'd like to see more articles on Syria or Nigeria. The whole Trayvon Martin thing was overblown in the mainstream media imo, but that's what the mainstream media does. I don't remember many articles here unless I just filtered them out and forgot about them. The mainstream media distracts us from the "stuff that matters" unless the shit is really hitting the fan somewhere. It's becoming more and more clear they're a propaganda machine that occasionally reports on world events to maintain a shred of credibility, but never without some partisan bullshit like the administration's refusal to classify this coup as a coup.

In these comments I see all kinds of points about policies and actions going back decades that have contributed to this situation. I'd never find something like that in the mainstream media, Google News included. They're too busy trying to convince me of which lizard is the wrong lizard.

The comments here tend to cut through that nonsense.

There was a comment a few up that was begging for a suggestion that Egypt should implement some form of instant runoff or approval voting since first-past-the-post is essentially how Morsi was even able to get elected. Granted, I haven't been paying that close attention to know how much "truthiness" that conjecture has.

Other news sites have comments but I haven't found one with the whole moderating-metamoderating karma shebang. I admit, I haven't tried Reddit much, so maybe that would be something to look into.

Also imo, a Third Amendment lawsuit may be relevant, but as "news for nerds," that is, nerds who even know what a Third Amendment is.

Re:News for nerds?

[Bucc5062]

I agree with everything you say and as a long time member of /. have seen this type of discussion slosh around enough times to mainly just ignore the "that does not belong here" argument. Having dabbled in Reddit and drifting through other commentary sections (slate/HuffPo) I find the comments, as a whole, here on /. to be the most rewarding.

What that said, I do disagree about the Fox new bit. 99.99% of the time I avoid links to fox news pages for it tands to be hyperbolic nonsense. In this case I found the article quite fascinating and the general idea worth discussion. In today's world, what is the definition of a soldier? Did the founding father's mean a literal (military) definition or a more broad (Authoritarian) view. In these hallowed pages we have discussed far more esoteric new items and "Nerds" is not confined to science. There can be law nerds as well.

I also think that the article its self is disturbing in the trend that is being set by local governments. If we can get more into a talk about the 4th, just because it relates to computers, but the deeper discussion is really about Citizen rights, in the case of the 3rd it has a similar taste. A man refuses the local Gendarmes (police, soldiers?) access to his private home and instead of respecting his right, either in the 4th (right to privacy) or the 3rd (no quartering) they instead harass and arrest him. Patterns are being set that frankly start to concern me for it is a thin line that separates the America of the Constitution and an America that looks more like Egypt. That line is the respect of the People and the Laws that protect them. For me, that is News That Matters.

Re:News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

>"nerds" who read Slashdot often provide more insightful commentary than any other group of private citizen commentators

Most hilarious thing I've read all year. The best part is that Scorch_Mechanic most likely actually believes this to be true.

Re:News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot's readership is one of the largest college educated and tech focused groups out there.

Well, it used to be but I'm seeing a LOT of comments these days by people who seem to be barely literate; using grocer's apostrophes, thinking the verbs "lose" and "loose" are the same, not knowing the difference between "there, their, and they're" (there are few left, it seems, that know when it's "whose" or "who's"), writing "txtspk" like they're on a cell phone, and saying REALLY stupid things.

That said, I agree with your first paragraph. Not all the educated people have left, I just wish the high school dropouts would shut the fuck up and pay attention to the educated.

Re:News for nerds?

[msobkow]

It's not "News for Technologists", it's "News for Nerds."

i.e. For intelligent people who prefer thoughtful discourse to standard media pap.

And as they live all around the world, that means it doesn't need to be US-centric, either. And thank God it's not.

Re:News for nerds?

[Limburgher]

Agreed. And Slashdot's 9/11 article was excellent. The comments provided, in aggregate, excellent, up-to-date, and accurate information, and additionally Slashdot was one of the few sites that stayed up all day that day.

Re:News for nerds?

[HornWumpus]

Go back to Reddit, English major. None of your complaints matter at all.

Re:News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget those that don't know the difference between "then" and "than"

HornWumpus, you're a fucking idiot.

Re:News for nerds?

[kaatochacha]

I've never heard the term "grocer's apostrophe" before. Learn something new every day. Thanks.

Re:News for nerds?

[shilly]

I think you are mis-reading the phrase "News for nerds" and, specifically, you are missing an important distinction: Slashdot is not a site for tech news. It's a news site for techies. The Venn diagram obviously intersects an awful lot, but the circles aren't concentric.

Maybe overturning an election

[Presto Vivace]

was not such a great idea. Even when the bad guy wins, it is better to respect the results of a democratic election.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[h4rr4r]

We have done that zero times.
We have regularly disposed elected leaders both in the middle east and south america.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[chill]

No shit. I mean, why start now?

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

We have done that zero times.

I am fairly certain that the US has not attempted to overturn every single democratically-elected government on the planet.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Opportunist]

Are you deliberately fishing for comments or are you really that illusional? Pick for yourself the one that you like best:

Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Brazil, 1964
Chile, 1973

And that's just the ones that I can think of without digging too deeply.

Aside of that there are various "interventions" that are more or less known to be US based or US backed meddling, from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Turkey and a few more where they actually didn't succeed. Yes, such a thing does happen, too.

So please don't tell me the US gives a shit about elections. If those elections turn out to be against their interests, the government is fair game.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say that the US has never attempted to overturn a democratically elected government. They have.

h4rr4r claimed that the US government has never allowed a democratically-elected government that we didn't approve of to stand. That's just ridiculous hyperbole.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Dragon Bait]

Are you deliberately fishing for comments or are you really that illusional? Pick for yourself the one that you like best:

Iran, 1953 [wikipedia.org]
Guatemala, 1954 [wikipedia.org]
Brazil, 1964 [wikipedia.org]
Chile, 1973 [wikipedia.org]

And that's just the ones that I can think of without digging too deeply.

I believe the comment was US has not attempted to overturn every single democratically-elected government and not the U.S. has attempted to overturn zero democratically-elected governments.

Some? Yes. All? No.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Bing Tsher E]

Work on reading comprehension.

The four links you provided were not every election that has occurred. And your handwaving about other instances is... well, did it cool off your fingers?

There have been many unjust interventions throughout history. By many geopolitical forces. Not just by the U.S. I mean, get fucking real.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Culture20]

Even when the democratically elected official is planning to set himself up as dictator? Their choices were "Confirmed guy trying to be dictator and 0.00001% chance of getting a real election again" They went with the lottery ticket choice (which many people would).

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how the Middle East works. Morsi was unpopular with millions of people that are not a part of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were taking to the streets and things were probably going to end up bloody so the military stepped in to prevent an escalation between Morsi's goons and his detractors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592291/egypt-swears-in-supreme-court-chief-justice-adly-mansour-as-interim-president-after-mohammed-morsi-removed-by-military/

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Martin Blank]

There was little to no chance of Morsi becoming a dictator. The military ultimately has the power in Egypt and has for decades. That the ruler has been cozy with the military and therefore safe has been the general rule. Morsi was not only not cozy but aggressively tried to sideline the military which made him unpopular with both the military and the people.

It doesn't matter who runs Egypt in the next few years. They're going to be unpopular because Egypt's economy is in a shambles largely due to excessive subsidies. They export oil but import gasoline because they don't have sufficient refining capacity, making fuel subsidies extremely expensive to maintain. They don't grow near enough grain to feed the population and have to import it at international market prices while subsidizing it to an enormous degree.

The military wants to keep the power but doesn't want to be the public face of it. They also don't want anyone remotely friendly with the insurgents in the Sinai in power (effectively ruling out Salafist candidates), and know that most secularists stand zero chance of doing anything more than spoiling a vote. This leaves the Muslim Brotherhood and allied smaller parties, which isn't really possible right now because they're boycotting anything political.

But in the absence of an overthrow of the military establishment (everyone from captains up and even most of the junior officers), the military isn't going anywhere, nor do about half the people want them to. They're seen as the protectors of the state, such as it is.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[shutdown -p now]

Even when the bad guy wins, it is better to respect the results of a democratic election.

This is only true when the elected bad guy himself respects the democratic institutions and free elections, which was not true in case of Muslim Brotherhood in power.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[gorzek]

The problem is that, in a country lacking a strong democratic tradition (i.e. Egypt), the democratic process is likely to be (and was being) subverted by whoever fills the power vacuum, in order to prevent ever being dislodged. The Muslim Brotherhood is radical and uncompromising. They were not interested in sharing power, nor are they interested in sharing it now that Morsi's government has been deposed. It's their way or the high way. Unfortunately, blocs that want power-sharing and compromise represent a minority of Egypt's fractious political allegiances.

It is difficult, to say the least, to have a country with a new democratic process actually stick with it long-term when such a form of government and civil society is not in their cultural DNA. It takes time to build that tradition to the point where you have stable, orderly transfers of power after elections. Look at the US: no matter how chaotic our election campaigns are, no matter how confused or bizarre, people do not end up taking to the streets to kill each other over them. At worst, we call upon the courts to resolve them and then live with that decision. We are invested in and believe in the process, even if we don't always like the results.

I'm not saying the coup (and it was a coup) was a good option. It may, however, have been the best of limited options. I suppose time will tell. You could argue that Egyptians should have waited until the Brotherhood outright canceled or rigged future elections before taking action, but then you and I are not the ones who have to live with the consequences of it, either way (unless you live in Egypt, in which case I apologize for speaking for you!)

It may be a long while before Egypt finds stability and reconciliation as they attempt to transition from one-party rule to plurality and compromise.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. The recently popular "everyone is doing it, so we are okay to do it too". The slow descent in the abyss of mediocrity.
I am sure if we tally it up, the US is actually responsible for the highest amount of meddling and government overthrows on this planet in the last 70 years. Basically every president of this nation in that period has overthrown someone somewhere.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you deliberately fishing for comments or are you really that delusional?

FTFY

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot Germany, 1933

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[rahvin112]

If you truly believe what you wrote you have no idea the steps Morsi was taking.

The brotherhood was inserting their members (who swear loyalty oaths to the leader) into every single government leadership position (including the ironic one of putting an Islamic leader responsible for the killing of tourists in charge of the main tourist area). In addition the brotherhood had begun inserting themselves into the military by insisting their members be appointed to ranking positions within the military.

The plan was to replace all the civil, democratic and military leadership with Brotherhood members. With a constitution that gave legal overrides to clerical leadership, all major positions dominated by brotherhood members and the upper military leadership in the hands of the military could you honestly say they didn't appear to be building a dictatorship under the guise of democracy?

Morsi and the brotherhood took over almost every civil institution and he had started the work of replacing the military leadership when the populace reached the point of no return and the multiple million people protests took place. The military leadership at that point had a public mandate to stop it.

Is it a coup? Yep. Did the people want it? Yea, almost everyone except for the 20% of the population that considers themselves Islamist. Can they form a working country without that 20%? I doubt it. Consensus and deal making is what will create a stable Egypt, until they realize that on both sides (military and Islamist) they won't go anywhere.

Revolutions are dirty slow things. The US revolution was super fast in that it only took a little more than a decade for a stable republic to start, and even then we had a civil war later because of unresolved issues the founders left for later generations to sort out. The French revolution was nearly 100 years of royalty, foreign invasion, emperors and failed republics before the modern French republic was birthed from the ashes. If Egypt can pull of a stable republic in 5 years they'll beat the odds. It's silly of anyone to think they are going to get it right on the first try.

It takes a long time for everyone to realize you can't sideline minorities and that everyones voice needs to be heard in government. The islamists sidelined the Christians and secularists. The Military is sidelining the Islamists. This will likely go back and forth a few times. Morsi outright lied in his campaign about what he would do. He couldn't win anything at this point because everyone knows the brotherhood will say anything to get elected.

  I pity the Egyptians, without Tourism they can not survive financially, there will be bread riots at some point in the future and it's going to be bad. Starving people are very destructive.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[ZaskarX]

Give me a break. The most recent example you can come up with happened 40 years ago. Despite opportunities to meddle with elections in places like Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Palestine the US has refrained from doing so even if it has meant the election of an antagonistic head of state.

The whole US as shadowy evil puppet-master thing is wearing kinda thin.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure if we tally it up, the US is actually responsible for the highest amount of meddling and government overthrows on this planet in the last 70 years.

Funny how you decided to only go back 70 years. I wonder why? Oh, that's right, it might reveal the fact that many of those places the US was "meddling" with were a fucking mess left over from various European Colonial empires.
I also find it very revealing that you assume that because people showed up and put ballots in a box that the elections were in any shape or form democratic, fair, or otherwise just. Elections can be rigged, and often are.

Ah. The recently popular "everyone is doing it, so we are okay to do it too".

You need to work on your reading comprehension, he was calling the parent a hypocrite, not using it as justification.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[cayenne8]

Why should we in the US give a fuck what those towel heads do in their own countries?

We should back off and leave them alone. If they want to blow themselves to shreds, let them.

It isn't our fight, and it isn't our business....

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[tnk1]

I wouldn't say that "everyone is doing it so it is okay for us to do it," its more like "everyone else is doing it, we'd better get in on the action before we're facing down a completely hostile empire made up of conquered territories and closed markets that we didn't take a hand in."

Those countries were under the influence and might well have even fell firmly into the orbit of other states, like the Soviet Union, which would have simply used the same underhanded methods to achieve their similar goals. It's not very idealistic, but it is pragmatic. In the end, it is up to those countries to hold it against us or not. Chances are, our forbearance would have had no better effect for them or for us.

Despite that, I do feel that the US system is better than the Communist system, so I feel that if they did come out of this in the US orbit (as opposed to those countries we failed to succeed in), they are better off than they would have been otherwise. A lot of people complain about the US as a bully, and there is substance to that, but I don't think there was ever a realistically better alternative.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the ones USA does not overthrow it threatens/bribes etc to follow their ways and beliefs.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Dragon Bait]

Ah. The recently popular "everyone is doing it, so we are okay to do it too". The slow descent in the abyss of mediocrity. I am sure if we tally it up, the US is actually responsible for the highest amount of meddling and government overthrows on this planet in the last 70 years. Basically every president of this nation in that period has overthrown someone somewhere.

70 years? That brings us back to, what, 1943? Who was the first democratically elected government that the US over threw starting in 1943? Was it the National Socialists in Germany? Just curious.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[ph1ll]

You are aware that Morsi is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, right? (He is the leader of the Freedom and Justice Party that formed part of the coalition). Morsi was "not even the Muslim Brotherhood’s first choice for president".

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[abuelos84]

Well, the US could have just not backed the sociopathic military that for example ruled my country for decades (Argentina) killing tens of thousands...
Or more in the new millenium, Venezuela, Honduras, etc....
I'm not saying the rest of the world is pure angelic blowjobs, the soviets did some awful stuff quite similar to what you did to us...
But that doesn't change the fact that your govt conspired with military groups to commit crimes against humanity. Over and over...

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[abuelos84]

Uhm, Venezuela?
Like the country where the oposition was funded and coordinated from the US embassy?
Where they tried a coup, WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED AND PRAISED BY THE US like 5 minutes after they took (for a while) the presidential office?
Do we live in the same world?

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Oligonicella]

This has what to do with his actions, as described in the two posts above yours?

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

you should try reading your own link: ...nominally independent, but has strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, the largest and best-organized political group in Egypt

The Muslim Brotherhood announced on 21 February 2011, in the aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian revolution, that it intended to found the Freedom and Justice Party

The Freedom and Justice Party is based on Islamic law, "but will be acceptable to a wide segment of the population," said leading MB member Essam al Arian.[28] The party's membership is open to all Egyptians who accept the terms of its program.[29] The spokesperson for the party said that "when we talk about the slogans of the revolution – freedom, social justice, equality – all of these are in the Sharia (Islamic law)

So, the freedom and justice are within the confines of Sharia law -which is unjust towards non-Muslims

-I'm just sayin'

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah... Mob rule is so much better than what happened there. Of course.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[rahvin112]

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

Morsi was a Member of Parliament in the People's Assembly of Egypt from 2000 to 2005, and a leading member in the Muslim Brotherhood. He became Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) when it was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in the wake of the 2011 Egyptian revolution. He stood as the FJP's candidate for the May–June 2012 presidential election.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/whos-who-in-the-muslim-brotherhood

Morsi was first recruited to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States while studying for his PhD in engineering at the University of Southern California.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/20137314127329966.html

Morsi rose within the Brotherhood ranks, becoming a member of its powerful Guidance Bureau in 1995.

I can't find the source but I remember reading that Morsi is the 4th or 5th highest ranked brotherhood member. Yes he was the brotherhood's second choice for president, because he's not the highest ranking member. He has sworn oaths of fealty to the Egyptian brotherhood leader.

So everything you said was either a fabrication or a outright deception. Are you a propaganda agent or just an idiot?

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[rahvin112]

Yes we did and we should be fucking called on it. Argentina and Peru were fucking tragedies with tactic approval and assistance by the US. But if you continue to blame us for previous actions and act as if that's what we are still doing you are being dishonest.

We haven't done what we did to your country for several decades and I don't think we ever will again. The filibustering that happened in Guatemala was far worse than what happened in Argentina, and it would be equally stupid to blame current Americans for those actions as well.

All nations do terrible things, the question is if they learn from them. I'm proud of how we handled the Arab spring, we could have easily done what we did to Peru and Argentina but we choose to honor our values instead (even if in the long run its bad for our interests) and I'm frankly proud that we've made that step.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

According to your own source (Wikipedia) Morsi is a member of the MB, and the FJP is the MB's officially designated political party. And not that it matters (just one more thing you got wrong) but Morsi is no longer head of the FJP.

You are correct that he was not MB's first choice for president. He was their second choice after Khairat El-Shater was disqualified. So they wanted him less than Khairat El-Shater, and more than any of the other 80 million people in Egypt. I'd love to see you explain how that shows Morsi is not tied to the Brotherhood.

So, um, you're wrong.

Re: Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, fundamentalists believe in democracy, at least until they get elected, then never more.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

You seeing those US citizens that are denial over how there government has intentionally backed dictators, or corrupt parties, with the intent on flexing its military/economic power.

The US has always been involved in something, and it seems the US has done it on purpose to piss off certain countries with the hopes of using it for some propaganda towards going to war. Again the US has become very much like the old Soviet union, we are world dictators with no goals in mind to help countries out, unless we gain something out of it, such as adding your economy to are corporate monopolies. I believe a number of islands while not considered Union States are US controlled territories.

The US has been involved in creating some of the worlds most horrific disasters, right along with the Soviets. However citizens believe and have seen what the Soviets have done, but refuse to believe it when it comes to there own country why? they believe they are the world saviors, because of democracy, while the Soviets were communists.

  Both were after advancing there own greed and agendas..

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that if he hadn't been removed, it would be morsi police shooting the opposition. He was actively destroying the democratic process that elected him

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[couchslug]

The Egyptians who oppose Jihadism understand the threat.

Morsi and the IB are hardcore Islamists. The only reasonable response from those not wanting to be slaves to theocracy is to kill such people.

If the US had a "Muslim Brotherhood" problem (from any superstition) I'd support the government exterminating them.

"âoeMan will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.â
Denis Diderot

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[couchslug]

The problem is the MB superstition demands theocracy.

I find the willingness of other Egyptians to kill such people impressive. They know extreme Superstitionists cannot be reasoned with, but they can be shot. Bravo and keep shooting.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Martin Blank]

I do have a fair idea of what Morsi was doing, and yes, he was trying to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood. But much like every other opposition party who decried all of the things the party long in power was doing, he learned that calling for change and actually changing are two very different things.

In trying to take control of the military, he set himself up for failure. I mentioned the fuel and food shortages, and there is also Egypt's significant debt that requires payment from reserves it doesn't have. Had Morsi tried to work with the military, they might have tried to work with him to keep the population under control. As it was, when he started talking about reducing subsidies and people started protesting that (on top of everything else), the military intervened only when they deemed it in their interest, like protecting Morsi when the security forces he did control proved inadequate.

The military doesn't care too much who is running the government as long as it doesn't interfere with their own investments and power, which also means not abrogating the peace treaty with Israel (war is bad for their investments). They'll work with anyone who is willing to leave them alone and doesn't cause too much discontent among the populace. But this removes a large fraction of the people who would run and hence makes almost anyone else not viable in an election. There has been some speculation that Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi will run for president, but this risks the military getting involved directly and openly in politics, something that it has been loathe to do. If he wins, he risks being seen as a Mubarak-like dictator running the government while cozy with--or completely controlling--the military, especially if he starts doing things the people don't like (like reducing subsidies). If he loses, he risks tarnishing the generally positive view the population has of the military.

I agree that this will probably go back and forth. I think it may at some point end up in a situation like Turkey: a nominally secular state with an overwhelmingly Muslim majority where the secular character is protected by the military, which steps in whenever the secular aspect is threatened. There would still be members of Islamic--and even Islamist--parties elected and even reaching the most senior jobs in government, but always with the risk of being deposed if they push too hard toward a religious state.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed a few elections in your response.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Anonymous Coward]

"pure angelic blowjobs" sound quite nice until you consider that angels are not historically female. In fact they tend to be somewhat more like this guy

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Baki]

Only the election was not really democratic. Democracy is more than just holding an election and giving all power to the onewho got 51%.
For example, Egypt did not have a constitution and the process to get one was completely flawed.

The consitution is supposed to keep the government of the day in check and prevent dictatorship of the majority.
That was going all wrong, so something had to happen.
Of course what happened now is bad.
But it is questionable who is to blame and if better options would have existed.

Re:Maybe overturning an election

[Baki]

Look what is happening in Turkey.

A lesson in sentence construction

[Anonymous Coward]

As worded, the lead sentence says that the Egyptian security forces are the ones who have been protesting Morsi's ouster for weeks and forming encampments.

Please, especially when the meaning of the sentence is important and serious, learn to construct the sentence properly.

Whose army?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall that other countries told the Egyptians "you're doing it wrong".

Like they did with Cuba or Venezuela. Hell, it goes all the way back to Mossadiq.

We only want honest elections when the "right" person gets in.

News from where?

[judoguy]

"allowing security forces to arrest and detain civilians indefinitely without charge."

Uh, is the article about Egypt or America? It's hard for me to keep track sometimes.

Re:News from where?

[Deflagro]

Egypt obviously. In America we just let the government do whatever they want and ask for more when the next puppet is put into place.

They got voted in, so deal with it

[ikhider]

The Muslim Brotherhood got voted in, so they must be deal with. If the people are unhappy with them, vote them out. If Americans don't like the elected representatives, too bad. The world had to deal with Bush TWO TERMS. Egypt was under dictators for a long time and they are not used to voting their dissatisfaction. "Oh, the Muslim Brotherhood is not secular enough to my tastes!", if you are Egyptian, vote for whoever next round. If you are outside of Egypt, too bad.

Re:They got voted in, so deal with it

[Nidi62]

The Muslim Brotherhood got voted in, so they must be deal with. If the people are unhappy with them, vote them out. If Americans don't like the elected representatives, too bad. The world had to deal with Bush TWO TERMS. Egypt was under dictators for a long time and they are not used to voting their dissatisfaction. "Oh, the Muslim Brotherhood is not secular enough to my tastes!", if you are Egyptian, vote for whoever next round. If you are outside of Egypt, too bad.

So what happens when the elected leader(Morsi) declares he has legislative powers and can enact any law that he wants and starts firing anyone from the government that won't follow his lead? Vote him out in the next election? Oops, too bad, he just declared no more elections. Then Egypt is stuck with another Mubarak that is also a radical Muslim. Voting someone in means that the population is extending to that person their consent to be governed by him. That consent can be removed at any time, the citizens do not have to wait for the next round of elections. And that is what has happened in Egypt. The people saw they were sold a false bill of goods, that the government they got was not the one they voted for. So they revoked their consent.

Re:They got voted in, so deal with it

[v1]

The Muslim Brotherhood got voted in, so they must be deal with. If the people are unhappy with them, vote them out.

When's the last time you saw a muslim brotherhood run government hold a multi-party election? That's not how islam works. Going by the book, (and they do go, quite literally, by the book) there is no give-and-take, there are no options, there is only islam, until they've conquered the entire world. It's going to stay that way until they lay off the literal interpretation of their koran. Israel is driving them absolutely crazy. Do you really see any tolerance for other options there? And that's in a different country. They can't stand other countries near them to use an alternate form of government.

Expecting a muslim brotherhood to hold multi-party elections is completely beyond the realm of reason. Once they're in, the entire country will dial back 400 years and you'll pay hell to get rid of them.

Re:They got voted in, so deal with it

[Pumpkin Tuna]

You are assuming that Morsi was going to allow round 2. It wasn't looking like it.

Re:They got voted in, so deal with it

[Gavagai80]

Seriously, why do you think he seized legislative powers? Because the courts dissolved the Muslim Brotherhood dominated legislature. Morsi would've been only too happy to let the legislature make the laws, if the legislature had been allowed to do that by the Mubarak-appointed judges.

Re:They got voted in, so deal with it

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know all this how, exactly?

'Cuz I've met people who have lived in the thick of it, born and raised, who would tell you that you're a propagandized fool.

Re:They got voted in, so deal with it

[ikhider]

Until elections are cancelled, you can't say jack. Meanwhile, it's just conjecture, rhetoric, bullshit. Bring the ELECTED representative back.

Enough with "Democracy" Already

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is NOT a democracy and I'm glad. It's a cliche but we shouldn't forget that democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. Egypt got here democracy and the Islamists wolves were preparing to dine on everybody else.

Re:Enough with "Democracy" Already

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN! The United States is a Republic and many of our forefathers GAVE THEIR LIVES for that Republic and I for one will not let it be destroyed by Mob Rule.

Re:Enough with "Democracy" Already

[shutdown -p now]

USA is a democratic republic, aka representative democracy. Your dictionary is 200 years old, you should get a new one.

While certainly newsworthy

[axl917]

what does this have to do with Slashdot, really? We're not really a general news site.

Re:While certainly newsworthy

[chthon]

When the religious fascist really take over, educated geeks are the first to dispose of, because of the fact that they can see through all the bullshit.

Oh, OK. 'bye then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always make your own site with news for nerds, and hookers, and drink.

IT IS AFRICA !! MURDEROUS CAMP RAIDS COMMON !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing new to see here !! Move along !!

they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[Thud457]

oh yeah... we're all for "spreading Democracy", but then get our panties in a bunch when they democratically elect "DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN".

This is a military coup against a legitimately elected government.
The fact that 'merkins are askeered of the Muslim Brotherhood is beside the point.

Re:they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah... we're all for "spreading Democracy", but then get our panties in a bunch when they democratically elect "DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN".

This is a military coup against a legitimately elected government.
  The fact that 'merkins are askeered of the Muslim Brotherhood is beside the point.

Dude, tough titties that your anti-American Islamist heros got booted by the will of the Egyptian people themselves. But only after they pissed off most Egyptians by shutting down legislatures and other means of usurping power.

I know it's hard for your little brain to believe, but the US is not the source of all evil in the world.

Also, I'm curious. Since Islamists tend to execute gays under sharia and you're supportive of Islamists who want to impose sharia, is it OK for Christians to simply oppose gay marriage? Or do you express your support for radical Islamists out of childish, reflexive, unthinking, downright-fucking-reactionary anti-Americanism?

Re:they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[operagost]

I didn't know genital wigs were afraid of anything.

Re:they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[CdBee]

except naked flames

Re:they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[CdBee]

IMO the 'support' was one of those forced gestures that democracies get caught in, to their general ridicule.

Having campaigned however reluctantly - for democracy it would have looked very bad then to denounce the victor. That sort of thing would instantly be compared to Chile, where in 1970 Salvatore Allende won a democratic election giving him a mandate for a form of Christian Socialism which entailed the nationalisation of some (profitable) American business operations in his country... and was overthrown and killed by a US-friendly right-winger (Augusto Pinochet) who was content to leave business in private hands.

Whether such an act of denunciation would look bad compared to how bad the present situation seems, is a question for more scholarly minds.

Re:they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah... we're all for "spreading Democracy", but then get our panties in a bunch when they democratically elect "DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN".

This is a military coup against a legitimately elected government.
  The fact that 'merkins are askeered of the Muslim Brotherhood is beside the point.

Indeed it is.

What is the point, in fact, is that it's the majority of Egyptian people who are "askeered of the Muslim Brotherhood".

Re:they gotta learn from their own mistakes...

[Darinbob]

Muslim Brotherhood was also the only organized party in any real sense, so they got elected even though overall they're in a minority. Yes, it's a democratic election but you can easily have one sided democratic elections.

There are some competing problems here. First the Morsi administration was not well liked at all. The consitutional process and the result was not well liked. On the other hand no chance was given for the democratic process to vote them out. Then flip back again and the administration had been consolidating power in the executive and making it harder for real democratic opposition. Back on the other side having the military take over just took everyone back to the start as if Mubarak was still in power.

Ultimately, I wonder if Egypt will end up like a Turkish democracy; everything seeming to be democratic up front but with a strong independent military behind the scenes that has proven many times that it will take over at a moment's notice.

Good.

[Maudib]

Yep. Good.

That government was openly plotting to strip over half the population of their rights. Religion is a disease. It must be purged.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are still many states in the US that require belief in a deity to hold elected office.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Briefly checking wikipedia, we find that seven states ban atheists from holding public office: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. However, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) supercedes them.

Re:Turkey is cutting off its military leadership..

[Anonymous Coward]

Turkey's military kept the country from Islamizing all these years, and made Turkey a country almost as modern as most of Europe. However, with the EU insisting on the Turkish military's powers being curtailed, the result has been a resurgence of Islamic parties in Turkey, whose leadership is more interested now in re-establishing its leadership of the Islamic world like it had at various stages in Turkic history - from the Timuride to the Ottoman empires.

Re:IT IS AFRICA !! MURDEROUS CAMP RAIDS COMMON !!

[Nidi62]

Culturally Egypt is more aligned with the Middle East than the African continent. If you notice, the Middle East is always paired with North Africa (Egypt all the way to Morocco). North Africa vs. sub-Saharan Africa have far different political, socio-economic, and resource-use issues. Nice try on the troll though.

So

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that whole religion thing working out for you, Egypt?

you think I make joke...

[Thud457]

Given the Joshua Norton I was the only government recognized by King Kamehameha, all we have to do is reintroduce the Hawaiian royal lineage, and we're on the road to reinstating the Emperorship of the United States to some random crazy person.
Arguably a more sensible form of government that what we currently have.
Given our shenanigans with other banana errr pinapple? republics, I would not entirely rule out such a possibility in the coming century.

Re:you think I make joke...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I'd support that.

Also awesome sig for the comment.

Close to home

[ThatsNotPudding]

The non-Muslims are divided into many smaller groups so can't form a cohesive opposition to the Muslim majority. The Muslims are well organized and it's easy for their imams to tell everyone to vote for the same guy. What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

So not much different than Baptist ministers in the south-eastern US.

No matter where you go, religion is terrible.

Re:Close to home

[geoffrobinson]

So without any reference to any god, God, or religion, how would we go about defining a meaningful morality? And I stress meaningful.

A bunch of atoms interact with a bunch of atoms. Whoop-de-doo!

Re:Close to home

[Anonymous Coward]

What a tool. You suppose religion is the only way to define a meaningful morality?

Idiots like you are whats wrong with the human race.

Re:Close to home

[shilly]

About your sig....I think you'd be better off sticking with RAH's line from Starship Troopers on this. It's more elegant, less moralistic, and more accurate.

Your errors:
- Slavery in the US, not slavery everywhere
- I'm struggling to think of a single communist regime that has been defeated in war. Not the USSR or its satellites, obviously. Not communist China, obviously. So who knows what the fuck you're on about.

RAH's line:
"My mother said violence never solves anything." "So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that."

Wanting for a Dictator

[WhatHump]

My neighbour is from Egypt, is Coptic Orthodox and a retired doctor. He goes back to Egypt every winter to escape the snow and cold, and then returns here to Canada for the summer. I asked him what he thought about a democratically elected leader for Egypt and he said "it won't work. Egypt needs a strong leader with absolute power." That's how the minority thinks in that country.

Re:Wanting for a Dictator

[MightyMartian]

It's little wonder a Copt would feel this way. Often times it was only Muburak and the Army that kept Egyptian Christians from being massacred by the Muslim Brotherhood and other related Islamist groups.

Re:Wanting for a Dictator

[CdBee]

Mubarak wasnt bad for the Coptic minority (or for the gay minority as it happens). His sons took prominent part in a movement of moderate moslems who placed guards to protect Coptic churches. I think minority groups everywhere fear overwhelming majority rule.

Re:Wanting for a Dictator

[SuperKendall]

So far, events have proved him utterly correct.

Perhaps it is wise to listen to someone who knows what the hell they are talking about by living it, rather than by abstract ideas that sound good but don't work in reality.

Look to Windward

[CdBee]

Events in the Middle-East begin, to me, to resemble the backstory to the late Iain M.Banks work. We've intervened in numerous ways in a society we don't really understand for a mixture of reasons in our own interests and also those which we perceived to be in the interests of the resident population.

And for cultural reasons we didnt comprehend, it's gone horribly wrong.

Re:Look to Windward

[noh8rz10]

Events in the Middle-East begin, to me, to resemble the backstory to the late Iain M.Banks work. We've intervened in numerous ways in a society we don't really understand for a mixture of reasons in our own interests and also those which we perceived to be in the interests of the resident population. And for cultural reasons we didnt comprehend, it's gone horribly wrong.

Alfred Pennyworth: You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.

Re:Look to Windward

[DexterIsADog]

But at least when Culture meddles, it's kind of fun. For a small number of people. And the drones get lots of killing in.

I agree now

[Okian Warrior]

I've changed my mind, now I see the value in these articles.

Various replies have been particularly insightful. For example:

[...] "nerds" who read Slashdot often provide more insightful commentary than any other group of private citizen commentators, and certainly more insight than what the majority of the 24 hour news-cycle organizations. Furthermore, because Slashdot has global readership we get commentary from people outside the United States. I love reading slashdot comments for the same reasons I like listening to the BBC on the radio on my local public radio station (KQED), because I hear fresh viewpoints that originate not in this country.

I'd like to see more articles on Syria or Nigeria. [...] The mainstream media distracts us from the "stuff that matters" unless the shit is really hitting the fan somewhere. It's becoming more and more clear they're a propaganda machine that occasionally reports on world events to maintain a shred of credibility, but never without some partisan bullshit like the administration's refusal to classify this coup as a coup.

In these comments I see all kinds of points about policies and actions going back decades that have contributed to this situation. I'd never find something like that in the mainstream media, Google News included. They're too busy trying to convince me of which lizard is the wrong lizard.

I've changed my opinion. It's probably good that Slashdot posts important news items, simply because you don't get insightful commentary anywhere else - it's a side-effect of the moderation system. Other news outlets allow commentary and have smart readers, we're the only one with insightful discussion. (Can anyone point to another site where the comments are worth reading?)

In particular, I found the comment "I'd like to see more articles on Syria or Nigeria" thought provoking. I don't know anything about either place, and maybe I should.

Slashdot is in a sense community driven. If there's not a lot of push-back, we will continue to see important articles.

...but that's a good thing.

Ridiculous

[deanklear]

Only a sycophant can ask if a nation surrounded by US military bases is "destabilizing" to regional politics.

The United States is propping up repressive theocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and Yemen -- as well as funding, training, and providing intelligence for al Qaeda elements in Syria -- under the guise of an all out proxy war with Iran. Iran being the nation we took control over in 1953 with a coup d'etat and ruled through our puppet government, complete with torture squads and secret police trained by our boys in the CIA, until 1979. When that government was overthrown by the predictably radicalized Iranian populace, we started funding, training, and providing intelligence for Sadddam Hussein. We arranged loans worth about 50 billion in 1980s dollars worth of loans from Gulf States, and the ensuing Iran-Iraq War lasted for 8 years and killed at least one million people.

Then Saddam -- our boy, remember -- invaded Kuwait without permission, and the Kingdom of Saud invited us onto their land to push him back over the border. Since GW Bush had some statecraft experience, he knew better than to invade, and lifted the no-fly rules so Saddam could mow down dissidents we had helped stir up and at least regain control between the narrow tract of land we left him.

Fast forward to 2001, and Herbert's son, probably the dumbest leader in world history, invades Iraq, wrecks the country, creates an enormous power vacuum with one fourth of the troops his generals asked for, and now then Sunni terrorist elements moved in to begin their war against the newly freed Shia elements long repressed by Saddam. This situation has currently led to a nearly region-wide sectarian conflict stretching from Bahrain to Lebanon.

Now al Qaeda operated Sunni elements are poised to start a full-scale, no bullshit war in Iraq, funded by our Gulf allies -- where sodomites and witches are regularly beheaded; where women and non-Muslims can't even testify in court; where zero synagogues exist compared to a few hundred in Iran. And this is in Iraq, where zero al Qaeda affiliates operated before Junior's colossal fuckup.

The conflict pitted Sunni rebels against government forces and Alawites, backed by Iran, also patrons of Iraq's Shia leadership. Weapons flowed to the rebels from the Iraqi tribes -- sold for a comfortable profit -- while the Iraqi Shia prime minister toed the Iranian line and lent his support to the Syrian regime. With both sides using the same sectarian rhetoric, it was easy to join the dots between the two conflicts.

Abu Saleh found himself fighting his old war in a new field. He lent a hand to the novice Syrian rebels and joined the fight, commanding a unit of his own operating in the city of Aleppo and the countryside north of it.

"We taught them how to cook phosphate and make IEDs. Our struggle here is the same is in Syria. If Syria falls, we are liberated; if we are liberated, Syria will be liberated. We have the same battle with Iran -- by defeating them we break the Shia crescent of Iran, Syria and Lebanon."

Abu Saleh claims that once he and his men had been accepted back in Ramadi, they formed three battalions that had hit convoys carrying supplies to Syria as well as an Iraqi army helicopter.

In another echo of recent Arab uprisings, Abu Saleh says he and other Sunni leaders have now secured support from wealthy Gulf state figures who funded them during the early years of their insurgency against the Americans.

After the truce between Sunni groups, he says, a meeting was set up in the Jordanian capital, Amman, between a united front of Iraqi factions and representatives of "charities" from the Gulf.

The Iraqis asked for money and weapons; after a decade of war their arsenals were almost depleted. What didn't get destroyed by US or Iraqi forces was sold to the Syrians. They needed money to train and recruit new fighters but more importantly a religious sanction from the religious authorities for a new round of fighting.

Re:Ridiculous

[HornWumpus]

W is a complete moron (who beat the D's twice) who certainly didn't want to restart the sunni/shea war. Perish the thought. Two groups of our enemies fighting each other and simultaneously bankrupting themselves and pumping the last of their oil. Only a moron would want that.

Re:Ridiculous

[deanklear]

Technically, he's an incomplete moron, because he doesn't understand that he is dumb. (Or perhaps it works the other way around?) Anyway, add to that your shared bigotry, and that equals at least two things you have in common.

Only a sociopath would want war across a region with a few hundred million human beings in residence for obnoxiously self-serving goals. Especially when that person manages to devalue the lives of innocent civilians by confusing their role with the actions of a small group of religious extremists.

Okay, let's make that three things you have in common.

Re:Ridiculous

[HornWumpus]

War is sociopathic. If you put a humanitarian in charge you lose and the sociopath on the other side is in charge.

Sorry you can't handle realpolitik.

Re:Ridiculous

[deanklear]

al Qaeda spent less than five million in total for their act of terrorism.

In response, the US has spent two trillion dollars, shredded basic parts of the constitution, lost allies across the globe due to unilateral and illegal wars, sent one million US citizens through war (and will spend approximately three trillion more dollars on interest and veterans care), and what has the change been?

Al Qaeda now operates in Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria (with help from US allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Bahrain), and is poised to launch a full scale attack on Shia forces from Aleppo to Tehran -- again, with funding and support from US allies in Saudi Arabia.

None of the 9/11 terrorists or their funding came from Iraq. The major nations that have provided cover for al Qaeda -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan -- have not received punishment, and the Taliban is set to retake Afghanistan the moment US troops leave Kabul. In the wake of the collapse of Saddam's government, and the idiotic decision to disband the Iraqi Military, al Qaeda operatives have swarmed into Iraq and are now setting up training camps throughout the country, as well as receiving training from US allies in Syria. (You may remember a few weeks back they broke into Abu Ghraib and freed 500 of their most senior military members.)

So who won the war? I'm guessing it wasn't the guy whose Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, famously claimed the Iraq War would cost "no more than 50 billion dollars." (Of course, he also hired a judge of Arabian Horses to run FEMA, so at least Rumsfeld had seen a tank before.) I don't think it was the guy who promised to find WMD, when all they found were the leftover WMDs that were a gift of the previous Bush Administration. Junior's group even failed at getting Iraq's Oil law overturned in 2007 when al-Maliki flat out told them it wasn't going to happen.

That's some stellar real-politik right there. So when a political leader fails to heed cryptic warnings like, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States," fails to confront terrorism while his administration claims the real threat is Saddam -- at least, until 9/11 -- lies about weapons of mass destruction, sends in a quarter of what Colin Powell demanded, fails to plain for a post-Saddam Iraq, allows al Qaeda leadership to continue operating in and outside of Afghanistan, fails to find (or even pursue) bin Laden, fails to improve the lives of the average Iraqi, creates a massive power vacuum and hands regional influence to the Iranians and the Syrians, spends two trillion dollars on a war, fails to raise taxes to pay for the war -- in fact, puts us another 2 trillion in the hole by keeping tax cuts during a supposed time of war -- and presides over the largest economic collapse in modern history while creating another weak state for terrorists to operate from and setting the state for an all-out sectarian war in a newly destabilized Middle East -- all while logging a record amount of vacation days -- what do you call that?

I'm listening.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to give you a hint.
Those guys who eventually get to be president. They're not dumb.
They may be manipulated, they may be beholden to other powers, they may be many negative things. They may even be less intelligent than the last few guys in the office.
But if you buy the whole "Oh, gee, shucks, he's a moron" line, then you need to take a glance at the mirror for dumb.
Just because you don't like them doesn't make them dumb.

Re:Ridiculous

[phantomfive]

That's a rather America-centric view.

Re:Ridiculous

[HornWumpus]

We'll see who won.

If the middle east spends the next 20-40 years fighting among themselves, we did.

Granting the reasons stated out loud were and are bullshit.

I agree with you about Clinton's malfeasance. He should have killed Osama years earlier. Had plenty of chances.

I note you and yours continued glossing over of Iraq's support for Hamas. Reason enough to move the war into their backyard.

Re:Ridiculous

[deanklear]

If the middle east spends the next 20-40 years fighting among themselves, we did.

What did we win? 4 trillion dollars of debt? The ire of the rest of the civilized world? Be specific.

I agree with you about Clinton's malfeasance. He should have killed Osama years earlier. Had plenty of chances.

The following is a transcript from the NSC commission in 2004:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, Commission Member: OK. With my 15 minutes, let's move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we've seen a memo that you've written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals' review of Al Qaida. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new '02 budget authority to help fight Al Qaida and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals' meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September. ...

ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.

CLARKE: That's right.

ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February.

I know you've never read about the NSC meeting, so I have highlighted areas of interest. Instead of taking the policy recommendations in place at the urging of several members of the Clinton Administration in December 2000 and implementing them, even after the Cole bombing, the Bush Administration shelved the policy and then delayed it by going on vacation.

Unless you are, in fact,

Sarah or Hagar?

[amateurhr]

It is funny that our struggles in life are so often rooted in the wife vs. mistress category.

Sorry

[deanklear]

I apologize for the lack of proofreading, but not the vitriol.

Heisenreporting

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have the news now with vague numbers, or you can have it later with accurate numbers. There also seems to be something about taking measurements becoming part of the story, perhaps even altering the story itself. Now if I could just figure out the part where I'm simultaneously Connie Chung and Wolf Blitzer, maybe then I could get off the meds...

Build a fence around Egypt

[DougDot]

And let them sort it out on their own.

Re:IT IS AFRICA !! MURDEROUS CAMP RAIDS COMMON !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactedly. And hole+sail murder is not hurd in the arab world. Egypt is not mexico.

Re:IT IS AFRICA !! MURDEROUS CAMP RAIDS COMMON !!

[HornWumpus]

North Africa wasn't paired with the middle east until the muslim wars of conquest. Once North Africa was ruled by Arabs things changed there for the worse.

Like America

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, Egypt is getting more like America. Detaining civilians indefinitely.

Because there was nothing to coup

[SuperKendall]

Morsi declared himself emperor after being elected. He was head of everything, able to override any decision by the courts...

THAT was a coup. What is happening now is popular uprising backed by the army, against a dictator.

The people taking back government is never a coup, it is an ejection.

On behalf of the people of Egypt, Fuck You

[SuperKendall]

There was little to no chance of Morsi becoming a dictator.

Are you insane? Morsi fired the heads of the military and then declared himself and anything he did above the law.

He was trying to shift over all control of the military to himself, and also declared himself head of the courts and police...

He was utterly a dictator. Note that the military did not step in UNTIL the clear will of the people was evidenced in massive protests against Morsi - and even then the military gave Morsi a chance to back off the power grab, which he would not do.

What the military has done is protected democracy from a monster, and acted only on the will of a people. Someone like you would rather see Egypt fall into a thousand years of darkness as millions died, in order to protect something that was no longer there. Disgusting and utterly stupid.

Re:On behalf of the people of Egypt, Fuck You

[SolitaryMan]

So, killing a bunch of peaceful protesters -- Morsi supporters -- was the will of the people?

In that case, fuck you too, people.

Opposites do not attract

[SuperKendall]

The Tea Party is about exactly as opposite to the muslim brotherhood as you can get.

The Tea Party wants limited government and reduced spending - which by definition lowers the ability to impose ANYTHING on the people. The Tea Party has nothing to do with religion, being mostly based on libertarian ideals...

The Muslim Brotherhood wants nothing more that to control EVERYONE to the greatest extent possible, based all on religion.

You backing ANYONE else besides the Tea Party means you move closer, not farther, to the government imposing religion upon you. You are simply choosing which particular brand of religion you wish imposed.

Odd Ideas

[SuperKendall]

In their eyes, few things are more dangerous than a stable, powerful, independent Arab state.

Except the U.S. did just that with Iraq, and has always backed Saudi Arabia which is EXACTLY that....

Shame you now jack-squat about the middle east, or you could have avoided a really embarrassing post.

Re:Odd Ideas

[fustakrakich]

Saudi Arabia is far from independent. They are puppets like the rest. They survive by their compliance, or they will end up just like Iraq, Libya etc... Shame you believe the bullshit propaganda.

Indefinite state of emergency?

[NoKaOi]

The interim President has also declared an indefinite state of emergency, "allowing security forces to arrest and detain civilians indefinitely without charge."

That sounds really scary, but the US has been doing this for TWELVE YEARS. If the US's goal is to spread its ways...mission accomplished in Egypt!

The problem, of course, is...

[Anonymous Coward]

that you want proof Morsi violated a Constitution he himself manipulated. This is like saying the Mormon church is obviously legitimate because Joseph Smith followed the his Book of Mormon, or saying that L Ron Hubbard was obviously right because nobody has proved he did not violate the rules he set out, etc. When the guy running things is the guy who wrote the rules, his legitimacy cannot be certified by his own writings.

One of the major problems with recent attempts to inject democracy into Muslim nations is that they have all started with the creation of a "Constitution", which in every case varied from a western-type by "showing deference to Islam" (The most energetic branches of Islam being opposed to some of the most basic ideas of democracy and freedom) and then putting people in power through a quick election (in which most voters understand what's happening and its importance even less well that westerners with long traditions of voting), and having that first wave of elected people "finish" writing the "Constitution" (thus making that first democratic election FAR more important than a typical election). This is a recipe for electing whichever thugs can get better organized first so they can win that first election and then having them manipulate the new constitution and resulting government system. The results should surprise nobody.

All philosphies are bad, purge them all

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb idea, right?

WHAT people believe is every bit as important as THAT they believe. Without its Judeo-Christian base, the west would not have developed all those freedoms which seem so obvious to so many today... so no, "Religion" is not a disease any more than philosophy is a disease nor is science a disease (no matter how far some have gone in using it to abuse people) nor is medicine a disease (no matter how many NAZI doctors, or doctors doing V.D. studies on black men can be cited) etc.

Substance... content... DETAILS all matter. Your simplistic attitude toward religion is like the attitudes some have toward various ethnic groups: a bad experience with an Italian businessman does not mean all Italians are "in the mob". A bad deal with a Jewish man does not mean all Jews are greedy. A bad experience with a black employee does not mean all blacks are lazy, etc.

Turn away from this sort of lazy thinking before it takes you to some very bad and stupid places

There are no real F-14 spares on the grey market

[Anonymous Coward]

The only non-US Tomcats were those sold to the Shah, so there was no foreign supply chain established. After the Shah fell, the US passed a law banning export of F-14 parts and tightened internal controls on the parts. As the F-14 was retired from the US inventory, another law was passed requiring that all F-14 airframes and parts not in a museum display be accounted for and destroyed... the only such law I am aware of ever having been passed. Some "F-14 parts" that are actually common with other aircraft ARE available (technically NOT "F-14 parts") like o-rings, fasteners, some avionics etc... but NONE of the F-14-specific custom parts. Very sad from an aero-history and future museums standpoint, but understandable given the performance of a Tomcat even relative to the new stuff the U.S. military is now buying...

Re:IT IS AFRICA !! MURDEROUS CAMP RAIDS COMMON !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, while some of the North African countries - Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco have been paired w/ the Middle East, other Muslim North African countries, such as Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Gambia, et al never are. But Egypt is rather unique, in that its medieval rulers usually also ruled areas like Palestine, Syria and parts of Arabia. Which is why they are very much an integral part of the Middle East.

Pharaonic and Roman Egypt were very much part of Africa, however.

Not aware rape was peaceful

[SuperKendall]

So, killing a bunch of peaceful protesters -- Morsi supporters

There is nothing peaceful about them. Some of them are armed. Morsi and supporters have organized Rape Squads that surround women with 20-30 men at protests and penetrate them with knives and fingers. They put women and children on the edges of the encampment to make sure they would be the first ones injured or killed in the event of any action. Are you really in support of these monsters?

I guess your "Fuck you" also goes out to all the women raped, some killed from the bleeding (oddly it turns out it's not good to put knives inside vaginas), or to all the christians beaten to death and churches burned...

These idiots have lost any amount of sympathy I normally have for even the worst group of people. If they are allowed to continue millions will suffer. You are just one of the tools being misled by propaganda to support a rule of terror that was interrupted before full control could be attained.

No straightforward path to democracy

[manu0601]

There is no straightforward path to democracy. For instance, it took France more than 80 years of instability to move from monarchy (1789) to the stable third republic (1871). In between there have been numerous revolutions, 2 republics, 3 kings, and 2 emperors.

Between 40 and 300 dead

[Anonymous Coward]

I was watching Aljazeera early this morning. I thought I had just turned on the regular newshour, but maybe it was a special on Egypt because I watched it for 40 minutes and all they talked about was Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood was claiming 300 dead while the government was claiming only 40, but one of their reporters claimed to have seen 30 people killed himself. If one guy just observing as a journalist sees 30 people killed, I would bet the total number was much higher.

They also said western journalists were being attacked as well.

It's probably not a good time to visit the pyramids and the usual CNN/Fox/ "news" channels have been pretty quiet about the whole Egypt thing while Aljazeera has given it a fair amount of coverage.

Why does it matter to the average person in the US? Well for one thing we give them a billion and a half dollars in aid every year.

What's this doing here?

[SlovakWakko]

While tragic if true, in the light of the blatant manipulation of public opinion by mainstream news agencies (paid for by various intelligence services) in recent years I don't believe ANYTHING regarding Asia+Africa that I see in our (western) media, or any other media for that matter. Also, as we have all (hopefully) learned by now, this kind of havoc is for the locals - here it's Egyptians - to solve, and for us it acts only as a distraction from our problems, like all the lying by our governments, price-fixing of commodities by big investment banks, paranoid-level spying by just about everybody with $5 to spare, pervasive corruption and outright stealing in the EU (and US isn't any better by now). I'm so angry just seeing this mind-game playing, adrenaline pumping piece of ... news here on /....

female genital mutilation in Egypt - 98% of girls

[Anonymous Coward]

98% of Egyptian girls, from a few days old to youth, go through female genital mutilation. 10% of them die the same day. 25% within six months. do the math - it is a little more than 100 every day.
who cares about regime changes or religious idiots or militaristic idiots fighting for control and money

Re:delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

Is illusional even a word?

Re:typo

[Anonymous Coward]

deposed

Yeah, regularly.

While Morsi gone is good the way it happened isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

They already had the mass popular support for him to step down, the military should have stayed out of it until critical mass caused him to step down or negotiate. In the end, it was just a matter of time, with people resigning left and right, pretty soon he would have been on his own. The unfortunate shortcut taken by the military tainted a popular movement that would have ultimately succeeded with much less bloodshed and undermining of a party that represents 20% or more of the Egyptian people. Most of those people wouldn't have given a rats ass if he resigned due to the mass protests, but the military stepping in to remove him then moving aggressively to attempt detain the party's leadership in the knowledge that they would raise a public outcry is about as coup as it gets.