Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 06, 2013

On ElBaradei And Other Thoughts On Egypt

Reading through the comments we all seem to agree that there was a military coup in Egypt and that it was, seen from a pure democratic standpoint, illegitimate in that it did not follow the law.

Now I for one have always been willing to consider illegitimate means when confronting authorities, especially right-wing neoliberal ones like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Be that through unsanctioned demonstrations, some clashes with police forces or whatever. There are projects that deserve such resistance and in some case such resistance has been successful. Legitimacy is thereby not the core question to me. Discussing legitimacy will also change nothing on the ground. The coup is done. Get over with it.

What we can do though is analyze the situation and how it came about. We can learn from it. Morsi came to power through elections with a rather small margin over the candidate of the old regime. It was obvious and foreseeable that he would be hindered in government by the old establishment. He should have recognized that from the get-go and should have acted accordingly. Unless large scale brutal force is used change in a complex society will only come in small steps.

At the beginning Morsi made peace with the army. The army in Egypt is a somewhat parallel society that has, at the higher officer ranks, lots of privileges and makes a lot of money. It is involved in all kinds of civilian businesses. That is a fact of life in Egypt and is, unless there is a real revolution, unlikely to change in the near future. Morsi considered this and when the army insisted on having its privileges written into the new constitution he agreed.

But Morsi did not really try to win the bureaucracy to his side. He did increase its wages (which is economically not sustainable) but that bribe was not enough. Over 80 years the state had been the enemy of the Brotherhood. Now the Brotherhood was supposed to lead it. There was distrust and paranoia on both sides and the first steps should have been to remove that distrust and to cooperate. Unfortunately that did not happen. Instead of elevating people from the establishment that could have helped him Morsi (or the MB) insisted on putting rather incompetent MB followers into leading bureaucratic positions.

The "renaissance" Morsi had promised for his first 100 days never got off the ground. There was no viable economic program visible and little execution. Egypt needed money and Morsi went around all possible donors and tried to get as much as possible. While doing this he sold out important foreign policy positions and did this in a rather amateurish way. That was the point that in the end pushed the army to intervene:

[R]elations between Mursi and his new generals deteriorated within months of his inauguration. Even Mursi's apparent success in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and the Hamas Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip irked the military.

"Mursi's intervention in the Gaza war made Egypt guarantee that Hamas would not carry out attacks on Israel. Which threatens Egyptian national security, because what if Hamas did? It could prompt Israel to retaliate against us," the security source said.

Mursi also talked loosely about possible Egyptian participation in a jihad (holy war) to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and raised the prospect of military action over a Nile River dam in Ethiopia. As a result, distrust of him grew in Egypt's high command, which saw him as recklessly risking their involvement in conflicts without properly consulting and respecting the generals.

"It reached a point where we began to be worried about putting important national security reports in front of someone we perceived as a threat to national security," the security source said.

The generals do have a point here. When the head of state runs around selling commitments that require military means there needs to be at least some consultation. Calling for Jihad in Syria to get money from Qatar while the Egyptian army fights such Jihdaists in the Sinai was really, really stupid.

Now some say that the army would have been incapable of taking down Morsi without foreign help. The army has run the Egyptian state for the last 60 years, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak were all officers. In a certain sense the Egyptian army is the state. It has smart and capable officers. It has intelligence services. It has financial means. It has over the years learned how to play the amateurs leading the State Department. Many people in Eygpt were also fed up with Morsi. At least some of the public support for the coup was certainly genuine and not just paid for claqueures. Whoever thinks that the Egyptian military needed U.S. help to plan and execute this coup should explain how it was able to run the country for 60 years in the first place.

My impression is that Washington was very split over the question of a coup. It wasn't really happy with Morsi even while Morsi was not avers to U.S. policy. But it also did not want to ruin its long time neoconned/Wilsonian project of "spreading democracy". It was told of the coup plans but tried to avoid its execution. In the end, I believe, the Egyptian generals simply had enough and created the facts on the ground. Washington now has to adopt to them. The cacophony of opinions about the coup, pro and contra, coming out of Washington these days supports this view.

Today Mohammed ElBaradei was sworn in as prime minister of Egypt. In his time at the IAEA ElBaradei has shown that he is no pushover. But is he capable of being prime minister? ElBaradei has no real constituency in Egypt but that is, I believe, an advantage as he will not have to cater to any special group. Unlike Morsi he knows how to play hard core international politics and that may be valuable in getting out of the economic mess the country is in.

The problems Egypt has are manifold and huge: poverty, unemployment, lack of water, lack of arable land, lack of investment and a very uneven wealth distribution. ElBaradei will try to tackle them all. It is unlikely that he will solve any of them but he may be able to take the first steps towards a better future. It will be a job where he will get no love but a lot of criticism and hate. In a year or two, should he survive that long, he will be burned (out) and will be replaced. I admire that he is putting himself knowingly into this impossible position.

Posted by b on July 6, 2013 at 02:31 PM | Permalink

Comments
next page »

"The army has run the Egyptian state for the last 60 years, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak were all officers."
And before them, Egypt was run by the British army. The line of Khedives were themselves descended from Mehemet Ali who ruled through his army.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 6, 2013 3:08:09 PM | 1

@1 Right. And he was an Albanian/Turk.

Posted by: dh | Jul 6, 2013 3:13:37 PM | 2

Quite naive to think that Mursi got unseated because his Syria policy. This just shows that the Syrian-issue influence people here to a abnormal degree, like 'mursi fought against assad so whatever happens to him I dont care - he could go to hell!' seems to be the motto by some people here.
Besides, there is nothing to "admire" with a power hungry El'baradei nor a military regime.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 6, 2013 3:17:32 PM | 3

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/world/middleeast/israel-sees-prospect-of-a-more-reliable-egypt-and-a-weaker-hamas.html?_r=0
Israel Sees a Chance for More Reliable Ties With Egypt and a Weakening of Hamas
JERUSALEM — After Mohamed Morsi, an Islamist, was elected president of Egypt a year ago, he refused any contact with Israelis, raising deep anxiety here and concern about the future of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, a cornerstone of regional stability for decades.

But with Mr. Morsi’s ouster and the crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt this week, Israelis see the prospect of a return to what they view as a more reliable status quo, as well as a weakening of Hamas, the militant Islamic group that runs Gaza.

And yet, the good news for Israel remains tempered by the danger of chronic instability next door.

“What is important for Israel is a stable Egypt,” said Shaul Shay, a former deputy head of Israel’s National Security Council. “I don’t see the Muslim Brotherhood there swallowing the blow and waiting another 80 years to try to return to power. The story is not over, despite the fireworks in Cairo.”

While Mr. Morsi served as head of state, Israel’s only line of communication with Cairo was through the Egyptian military and security establishment, which is now controlling Egypt’s political process. Perhaps more reassuring to Israel is the role of Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the top commander who led the move to depose Mr. Morsi.

General Sisi is well known in Israel’s defense establishment from his past roles in military intelligence and in northern Sinai. An Israeli expert said that even after Mr. Morsi appointed General Sisi as his defense minister, the general’s office continued to communicate and coordinate directly with Israel.

....

“It’s good that the Muslim Brotherhood has gone,” said Zvi Mazel, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt. “If they had stayed in power for another two or three years, they’d have taken control of the military and everything else, and Egypt would have become like Iran.”

It is not good for a country to have leaders a majority of the people in the country would not vote for.

Asserting that it is, because unlike the majority of voters, you know what the country needs, is questionable at least.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 6, 2013 3:19:07 PM | 4

He should have recognized that from the get-go and should have acted accordingly.

Mursi's fault is that he is too nice a guy, and not ready to be brutal.

Even if he had been ready to be brutal, it would have been a difficult job. My impression is that he made some progress in unwinding military power, but at some point he came to a stop. That left the military free to make a coup.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 6, 2013 3:23:53 PM | 5

Another point that needs to be made is that Mursi and the MB ran roughshod to get an Islamist and much more sectarian constitution without any sort of consensus with the other groups, considering that only a minority of Egyptians voted for them. The failure of the MB was that never having tasted power over the recent decades they wanted to dominate all the levers of power immediately and write in a constitution that favored their ideology and group. Other groups resisted and created enough popular momentum with sufficient unity among various groups that it created the perfect set-up for the army to exercise their power.

Either the MB is going to learn from this experience and be more circumspect of their real power and backing of the people or they are going to create a sense of victimization among their members with a long running campaign of violence and destabilization.

For the army and the other groups opposed to the MB, they will need to co-opt as many MB members that are willing to go along with a more pluralistic political and constitutional framework. Only time will tell how this turns out. In any case credit is due the Egyptian people that they were willing to risk life & limb and get out into the streets in massive numbers. Interesting contrast to the citizens in the west who are quite happy with bread & circuses while their debt-addled societies go bankrupt gradually at first and then suddenly as Hemmingway noted.

Posted by: ab initio | Jul 6, 2013 3:27:20 PM | 6

Arnold Evans

People here will still say Israel doesnt benefit from the coup.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 6, 2013 3:27:55 PM | 7

b, the lesson the Brotherhood will have learnt from this coup is that elections are not worth it, that democracy is western scam and that violence is the only way of governing a country. This is going to backfire.

Posted by: g_h | Jul 6, 2013 3:40:39 PM | 8

8 - Who do you think would finance them?

Posted by: somebody | Jul 6, 2013 3:55:47 PM | 9

The military has proven for almost 40 years that it is more accountable to the US Embassy than it is to the Egyptian people. If not, Egypt would have had far different foreign policy throughout the Mubarak era.

Morsi was by law accountable to the Egyptian people. He would be removed after two terms by term limits, or after one term if he lost reelection, or immediately if the People's Assembly brought impeachment proceedings to completion.

Still nobody talks about the People's Assembly elections that the court cancelled. That the opposition announced it would boycott because the opposition did not believe it represented a majority.

So there were millions of people in the street who according to the previous six elections represented a minority of Egyptian voters and whose leaders were actively avoiding another election.

Yes they have rights. Not the right to select the President or leadership of the country. No more than Romney supporters have the right, angry as they may be that they lost, to depose Obama.

Now, using their protests as a pretext, according to Israeli officials, the military has restored the relationship with the United States and Israel that prevailed under Mubarak. From the beginning the US has wanted a government with a facade of elections but where the military is not under the supervision of the civilian government, so that it could continue to be accountable to the US government.

People at MoonOfAlabama would rather see Egypt as a US colony than see it ruled by the MB, even if the MB wins more votes than the opposition in every election. That's shameful and you should think about why that is. The answer cannot be pleasant.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 6, 2013 4:00:54 PM | 10

El Baradei is a total and complete Zionist stooge.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/egypt-elbaradei-outed-by-own-movement.html

Posted by: guest | Jul 6, 2013 4:08:08 PM | 11

re 1

"The army has run the Egyptian state for the last 60 years, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak were all officers."
And before them, Egypt was run by the British army. The line of Khedives were themselves descended from Mehemet Ali who ruled through his army
The idea of an independent Egyptian army goes back further than that, to the Mamluks.

The Mamluks were Turkish slaves, imported from Central Asia, and later from the Circassians of the Caucasus. In 1260 they took power for themselves, but retained somewhat the idea of being slaves, in that one Sultan could not deliver power to his son. After the Ottoman conquest in 1517, the Mamluk families survived in power until after Napoleon's invasion, when the Albanian adventurer, Muhammad Ali, arrived with British support in 1811. He was an alien ruler, though his descendants became Khedives and then Kings under the British.

The tendency towards independent military power seems to me to come from that. It is not the same in Syria, for example.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 6, 2013 4:12:55 PM | 12

I'll see your Mamluks and raise you the Ptolemies (who took over from the Pharohs)

Posted by: dh | Jul 6, 2013 4:23:54 PM | 13

Another point that needs to be made is that Mursi and the MB ran roughshod to get an Islamist and much more sectarian constitution without any sort of consensus with the other groups, considering that only a minority of Egyptians voted for them.
That sounds like a description of Cameron's operations in Britain, and he didn't even have a majority. For some inexplicable reason, we haven't had a revolution (we should have).

Posted by: alexno | Jul 6, 2013 4:26:48 PM | 14

More on the Zionist stooge El Baradei from Cartalucci's blog from 2011:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/11/egyptian-protesters-us-stooge-elbaradei.html

ElBaradei's Long Belly-Crawl Into Power

The US International Crisis Group (ICG) trustee Mohamed ElBaradei has spent over a year prying his way into Egyptian politics, landing in Cairo not at the beginning of the recent unrest in January 2011, but all the way back in February 2010. He was met, literally at the airport in Cairo, by the US State Department trained and supported April 6 Youth Movement and Google executive Wael Ghonim. Over the next year they campaigned together for the November 2010 elections, built up the "National Front for Change," and prepared for the protests Wall Street and London had been designing since at least 2008.

snip

The most recent manifestation of this came just this month when Israel farcically called ElBaradei an "Iranian agent." This latest performance further illustrates the immense level of duplicity with which world events are being manipulated. As previously reported, Mohamed ElBaradei is in fact a devoted agent of the West, with a long standing membership within the Wall Street/London funded International Crisis Group (ICG) along side "senior Israeli officials" including the current Israeli President Shimon Peres, the current Governor of the Bank of Israel, Stanley Fischer, and former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami. The ICG also includes senior American bankers and geopolitical manipulators including George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Armitage, Samuel Berger, and Wesley Clark.

Posted by: guest | Jul 6, 2013 4:47:41 PM | 15

...and some think the MB was a sort-of british project from the 1920's to work against egyptian nationalism. On that note I say that I miss Nasser. Under his rule Egypt was nobody's colony.

Posted by: bfrakes | Jul 6, 2013 4:48:35 PM | 16

@AE - why do you suppose that I or others here should support some extremely right-wing religious nuts with neo-liberal policies? Just because they were "elected"? Fucking no. I will not support them. I will opine against them. And in doing so I do not care about the finesse of this pseudo religion called "democracy".

There is hardly any country that works at the standard you suppose should have been followed in Egypt. Certainly not the U.S. or most EU countries.

Now those extremely right-wing religious nuts with neo-liberal policies were overthrown by some center-right wing military with neo-liberal positions. Those are the next folks I will opine against.

So what is your beef with my position?

You are fixated on U.S. interventionism and Israel claiming that this or that development will help its position. Israel declares that every time something happens in this world. Most of the times it is wrong in doing so. The U.S. always wants to spread a picture of its all-mightiness. Whenever you dig into the details you find great plans, horrible execution and utter failure (see Iraq, Afghanistan). The U.S. foreign policy is a joke. Still you fall for that nonsense.

The Egyptian military is not "accountable to the U.S. embassy". It is accountable to its officers and has to take care for their well being. It is accountable to the Egyptian people in that it depends, at least to some margin, on their support. The U.S. embassy is nice cow to milk as long as it helps to fulfill the army's primary goals. After that it is a sideshow.

If, as you seem to insist, the U.S. was the power behind the coup please explain why. What did Morsi do to change the U.S. view on him? Where did he divert from a U.S. and Israel friendly policy? Where was the criticism the U.S. is never shy to loudmouth against anyone deviating from its line?


Posted by: b | Jul 6, 2013 4:57:31 PM | 17

And here's a nice tie-in with El Baradei and Wikileaks - the world's favorite Zionist "activist" group - with Wikileaks running interference for El Baradei also in 2011:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/egypt-wikileaks-to-rescue.html

Shhh, don't tell!

During the March 19th vote on Egypt's constitution, ElBaradei was attacked on his way to the polls by an angry mob calling him "an American agent." His troubles were compounded when the constitutional amendments, which ElBardei had told supporters to reject, passed by a large margin. ElBaradei of course, wanted the constitution rewritten from scratch, with a newly drafted proposal, funded by fellow ICG trustee George Soros, ready and waiting to be ramrodded through.

With ElBaradei steeped in growing political mire and dealing with rumors that he and his stooge Wael Ghonim are part of a Western plot, global news wires are now reporting a Wikileaks release painting him in an anti-American light. The 2009 cables reveal that American officials were "unhappy" with ElBaradei. The news report also includes some off-hand comments about ElBaradei's plans to reestablish ties with Tehran and his thoughts on the Middle East peace process being a "ridiculous joke."

Posted by: guest | Jul 6, 2013 5:00:13 PM | 18

El Baradei is indeed a complete globalist stooge!

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/07/el-baradei-becomes-egypts-interim.html

And he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner! LOL.
We all know what those "peace prizes" are worth Nothing!
The awarding of them plays into the perception management of the masses

His strings are pulled. He is owned every which way imaginable.
His appointment makes it all the more obvious this was a coup backed by the usual suspects-NATO/Israel/UK
And had absolutely nothing to do with the will of the Egyptian people. Nothing. As if the dazzling laser light, fireworks and neon signs didn't tell us all the removal of Morsi was planned some time ago.

For all the arguing that went on here about 'elections'
Elections are a ruse, get over it already
If elections meant anything at all the elite crowd would not allow them. They are conducted to suck us all in.

And btw, this was not even anything like the situation in Syria
Nor is the Egyptian Army anything even remotely like the Syrian Army

If anyone is interested in Syria
There is is also info on Syria in this post
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2013/07/egypt-to-syria-fomenting-sectarian.html

Posted by: Penny | Jul 6, 2013 5:02:19 PM | 19

"Morsi was by law accountable to the Egyptian people"

Morsi ruled on the whim of the Egyptian Army
The Egyptian Army takes it's orders from 'higher powers"
That is a fact. Anything else is spin.
Sorry to be blunt. But, it is that obvious

Posted by: Penny | Jul 6, 2013 5:05:34 PM | 20

@6 Would that be the same Zionists who not so long ago denounced the same el Baradei as an Iranian agent as he was not sufficiently obesiant to Israel during his time at the IAEA?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146150,00.html

Hmmm, will we see a re-emergence of this Iranian agent meme now el Baradei has nominal control of Egypt?

Posted by: Yonatan | Jul 6, 2013 5:11:14 PM | 21

b "If, as you seem to insist, the U.S. was the power behind the coup please explain why."

b, seriously?
I am surprised

1.3 billion US dollars a year. military support for over 40 years now buys much loyalty in the Egyptian Army.
And the training of Egyptian Military officers in the finest US military academies and you ask if the US was the power behind the coup?

Posted by: Penny | Jul 6, 2013 5:11:42 PM | 22

El Baradei on the phone to Zionist orgs to wrap up their support:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/05/obama-backing-elbaradei/

According to well-connected Washington sources, including a Congressional staffer whose job description includes following political events in Egypt, once it became evident that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi might well be ousted by Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), it did not take Mohamed Mustafa ElBaradei, the Sharia legal scholar, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and for 12 years (1997-2009) the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) very long to contact the Washington, DC law firm of Patton Boggs. That was this past Tuesday.

The very next day, ElBaradei’s representatives reportedly also made contact with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which claims to represent the 52 largest American Jewish groups. ElBaradei, perhaps the current front-runner to replace his long-time nemesis, Mohamed Morsi, moved fast to organize some key allies in Cairo and Washington to pick-up where his earlier failed Presidential campaign left off in January 2011

Posted by: guest | Jul 6, 2013 5:15:10 PM | 23

Penny

Not to mention the dialogue US had with the egyptian military days before the coup.
Seems one have to really spell out whats going on for people here..

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 6, 2013 5:15:49 PM | 24

I doubt that "b" has any problems with el baradei being a western puppet, because from what I have read of this site he seems to be motivated by what he feels is the best for western imperials.

Posted by: Mike | Jul 6, 2013 5:23:26 PM | 25

I guess, Reuters gets it about right

How much the United States knew in advance about the Egyptian military's intentions is uncertain.

In recent months U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson had nudged Mursi publicly and privately to be more inclusive, but she continued to stress that he was a legitimate leader, fuelling a widespread perception in Egypt that the United States was backing the Brotherhood, and its Qatari sponsors, who lent Cairo some $7 billion to keep the economy afloat.

What is clear is that despite Patterson's public statements underlining Mursi's democratic legitimacy - which drew sharp criticism in Egyptian media - there was no red light from Washington against military takeover.

Basically the US has been talking out of both sides of their mouth .... go figure ...

Posted by: somebody | Jul 6, 2013 5:26:49 PM | 26

also Reuters

"The countries most supportive are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates because they understand Egypt's strategic importance to the Arab and Islamic world and fear the expansion of the Brotherhood," another security source said. "They also know that the end of the Brotherhood in Egypt is the end of the Brotherhood in the Arab world."

Posted by: somebody | Jul 6, 2013 5:31:22 PM | 27

@somebody - Basically the US has been talking out of both sides of their mouth ...

Exactly - the Washington establishment had no clear position and didn't decide. The Egyptian military the forced its view.

@guest, mike - Whoever thinks that ElBaradei is a zionist has missed a lot of news during the last two decades. BTW. The Land-destroyer is fine conspiracy side. No more, no less. Cartalucci gave up on blogging. Good.

@Penny - you have a rather simplistic mechanical view on what motivates people - in this case the Egyptian army. People are more complicate than your analysis allows for.

Posted by: b | Jul 6, 2013 5:38:55 PM | 28

It seems that lifting Elbaradei into the prime minister position has been taken back after the salafist AlNour party protested and demanded a neutral person for that position.

Now we are entering some really interesting terrain ...

Posted by: b | Jul 6, 2013 5:41:18 PM | 29

People at MoonOfAlabama would rather see Egypt as a US colony than see it ruled by the MB, even if the MB wins more votes than the opposition in every election. That's shameful and you should think about why that is. The answer cannot be pleasant.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 6, 2013 4:00:54 PM | 10

If that was meant to be the Mother Of All Non-sequiturs, it came close.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 6, 2013 5:54:50 PM | 30

I have different view.

Egypt is a basket case. Food, energy, healthcare are in the Middle East (heavily) subsidized. In Saudi Arabia & Kuwayt healtcare is free. But all those subsidies are coming out of the/any government's budget. And Egypt is no exception to that rule.

Morsi had a friendly attitude towards the palestinians in Gaza. That didn't go down too well in Israel. So, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Israel had put pressure on the US to put pressure on Morsi. And the US had leverage over Egypt. The US demanded that Morsi would "reform" the egyptian economy BEFORE the IMF would give Egypt a (new) loan. Those "reforms" forced Morsi to cut back on spending/subsidies. As a result of that the egyptian people revolted. (Like in Greece, Remember ?). So, Morsi was vulnerable. And Morsi's support for the syrian uprising was the straw that broke the back of the camel. It gave the army a good excuse to overthrow Morsi et al.

"El Baradei for President" ? If Baradei is smart then he simply would refuse to do that. It would simply another Morsi. If the army doesn't like what Baradei is doing then they overthrow the Baradei government as well.

It like one Bill Clinton said: "It's the economy, stupid.". As a result of the unrest and the economic recession in e.g. Europe less (or no) tourists are visiting Egypt. Another MAJOR source of income is shipping traffic coming through the Suez canal. But that traffic has been suffering as well from the recession in the world. So, I'll expect the army to remain in the background and push forward another sucker who becomes president. But I fear the genie is out of the bottle. If the next president can't bring improvements for the economy (and I don't expect to any improvement any time soon) then the people will riot again.

The fact that the US has send troops from Fort Hood to Egypt is a sign the US is extremely concerned. Keywords: "Suez canal". I also see it as a confirmation that even egyptian military is EXTREMELY worried. It also could be a sign that the army knows that more riots are coming, are inevitable.

And given the dire financial situation in the US it's questionable how long the US is ABLE to intervene in Eqypt and in other countries.

Remember the chinese saying/curse: "may you live in interesting times" ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Jul 6, 2013 5:57:40 PM | 31

b

Of course US have taken a side, the 1.6 billion aid hasnt been cut for one. Who do you US want to work with? The same military they have worked with for some 30 years and liberal westernized El'Baradei or the pious Muslim Brotherhood, a movement US have tried to suppress for 6 decades?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 6, 2013 6:10:41 PM | 32

Arnold Evans: 'People at MB would rather see Egypt…blah,blah'

Maybe some people would but shurely, aren't you simply indulging yourself? What any of us would rather see is neither here nor there. What's important that we not only understandwhat's going on and why, but that we look to our own predicament and let the Egyptians decide their own fate. The main reason why Egypt is in a mess because we've never stopped fucking with them!

Posted by: William Bowles | Jul 6, 2013 6:29:46 PM | 33

This outcome is great for the Empire. Not only are we dealing with the military now but we succeeded in rousing people into the streets to support the military. Could never have been done on the first take.

>> Morsi came to power through elections with a rather small margin over the candidate of the old regime. It was obvious and foreseeable that he would be hindered in government by the old establishment. He should have recognized that from the get-go and should have acted accordingly.

I wonder whether we did anything to encourage his boldness. If we did, great idea!

Posted by: "liberal" imperialist | Jul 6, 2013 7:01:40 PM | 34

@Penny - you have a rather simplistic mechanical view on what motivates people - in this case the Egyptian army. People are more complicate than your analysis allows for.

Posted by: b | Jul 6, 2013 5:38:55 PM | 28

"simplistic mechanical view on what motivates people"
Wow!
I suppose you have it all figured out, right?
On what motivates people? Yes, that's it.
Tell me all about it....

Then while your at it, perhaps you could explain what would motivate you to be so broadly judgmental of my thoughts on any given subject
"you have a rather simplistic mechanical view on what motivates people"
Sounds like a judgement with a broad brush stroke.
Was it because I am questioning beliefs?
As opposed to rational analysis of a situation?
Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message
Refrain from ad hominems...

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/04/19283700-analysis-us-billions-prop-up-military-that-toppled-egypts-elected-president?lite

"Just two months ago, Secretary of State John Kerry approved $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Egypt – the second largest recipient of such help after Israel.

In the past, American aid to Egypt has included armored personnel carriers, helicopters, anti-aircraft missiles, surveillance systems, fighter jets and tanks, as well as training as the U.S. poured more than $70 billion in military and economic aid into Egypt since 1948.

On Wednesday, the same military ousted Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi"

And that is just the funding the US acknowledges on the books
As I mentioned here 1 billion dollars was transferred from Libya to Egypt also, just a short time ago
Which IMO is a NATO funding/under the table
Just the facts


Simplistic? Or obvious?

Posted by: Penny | Jul 6, 2013 7:09:19 PM | 35

“Mother just told us that we will stop playing in one hour,” an aide texted an associate, playing on a sarcastic Egyptian expression for the country’s Western patron, “Mother America.”

Posted by: Maracatu | Jul 6, 2013 7:12:16 PM | 36

I must say I'm impressed with the west's divide and conquer strategy. Not only is it working in the Middle East, but also in cyberspace where bloggers and commenters, all with impeccable anti-imperial reputations are going at each other. Please take a step back. There is an event with various interpretations about the cause and effect. No need to be angry.

Many have been talking about the "redirect" since Seymour Hersch's 2007 article. Now that redirect has either taken a huge blow, or the west is calling off that strategy.

Penny, you and others have been arguing that the Mubarak overthrow and entire "Arab Spring" was also a color revolution and the plan was to get the brothers in power all along. Now what happened? Either 1) the west changed it's mind and wants to go back to the way things were, 2) the plan was thwarted by the army, or 3) there never really was a plan and things just happened beyond their control.

Posted by: Lysander | Jul 6, 2013 7:50:34 PM | 37

Lysander

The fact that some people lack knowledge about the sitution/region etc hasnt to do with any medial divide and conquer by "west".

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 6, 2013 7:58:25 PM | 38


http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-elbardarei-gets-chance-to-lead-20130706,0,7267311.story

"His appointment is certainly intended to calm international fears over Egypt's stability and to hurry approval of a crucial $4.8-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund."

So it's clear now what happened.

Morsy was not a good enough US servant; maybe he wasn't US's guy at all even though he had some sectarian anti-Shi'a Sunni tendencies, and supported Syrian rebels.

So they withheld the IMF money, forced him to cut back on spending/subsidies, drove the people into more poverty, and laid the ground for the coup. The fact that the US does not call it a coup, means it was a coup.

The new post-Bush policy powerpoint presentations have been saying that if we can get a civilian face and strong military we can control these countries, with Turkey as example.

So the army in a country gets their money and support, and they put a civilian servant on the throne, so that the US gets its man in return, a "sensible-looking-people's-choice".

Precedent for this is Erdogan in Turkey. Their economy is booming, everything has been privatized and sold off to foreign investment. Maybe Erdogan has now sold so much off that there is no need for him to be in power anymore.

So the US is now testing to see if this model will work in Egypt. The question is if the West is willing to put enough money into Egypt to put it back on its feet. Or at some point the winds change in the US and they pull the plug and things get more chaotic (I suppose the military is the option then).

If it does work, then watch out Saudi Arabia and Qatar! US wants a long term solution, and seems to think it now has the answer after failure of the Bush Iraq model.

Posted by: Paul | Jul 6, 2013 8:26:42 PM | 39

I'm not exactly sure why Arnold, et al thinks that the Wheel of Fortune is going to permanently point at the Army. It didn't after Mubarak was overthrown. The Army certainly tried, but public pressure forced elections. Public pressure prevailed then, and it will do so again.

To pretend that the Egyptian people have no control over their own destiny is to ignore the events of the last few years. It is important and meaningful that these protests were bigger than even the ones that toppled Mubarak. If trends hold (and there is no reason to believe they won't), the next will be even bigger.

We've watched the Egyptian people topple a 30 year dictatorship, a military junta, and a sectarian party all in the course of two years. What possible reason do people have to think that this process is over?

Whoever comes to power in Egypt who doesn't satisfy the street is not going to last long. That seems to be the clearest lesson to be learned from the events of the last two years. For those who think that the Egyptian people will long put up with being ruled by a "zionist stooge" against their will seems oddly to have missed what just occurred over the last few days.

The army could not have done what it just did without the popular protests to back it. To act as if the Army generated this coup out of thin air is ignoring an important truth.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 6, 2013 8:28:45 PM | 40

“Mr. ElBaradei said in an interview last week that he had worked hard to convince Western powers of what he called the necessity of ousting Mr. Morsi, contending that the president had bungled the country’s transition to an, inclusive democracy.

In the interview, Mr. ElBaradei also ,defended the widening arrests of Mr. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood allies and the shutdown of Islamist television networks that followed the removal of Mr. Morsi”


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/world/middleeast/egypt.html


Ok let see, he says he worked hard convincing the western powers to remove the elected president because he couldn’t make the country to an inclusive democracy, ok I got that, but once he got him toppled with his asked democratic cope, he now defends of arresting them and shouting down their media, because as you can see his cope made democracy” is all you can have” inclusive, just like going to club med.

Posted by: kooshy | Jul 6, 2013 8:44:55 PM | 41

@37 Careful Lysander. The analysis you're attempting to unpack usually covers all events from all angles at all times. You travel along that mobius strip of logic at your own peril.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 6, 2013 9:06:37 PM | 42

"Who do you want the US to work with...liberal westernized El'Baradei or the pious Muslim Brotherhood"

Speaking of divide an conquer, is that really the divide in Egyptian society that matters? "liberal western" and "pious muslim"?

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 6, 2013 9:29:50 PM | 43

Jul 6, 2013 8:28:45 PM | 40, Concur, but, conflict a little with 'ruled' by "zionist stooge" it is ultimately an 'Egyptian' that has accepted the 'Coin', not unique to any Country or politician, in fact the general flaw globally - El'Baradei is only a virtual interim factor, its still not a done deal, ultraconservative Salafi el-Nour party objected. The larger problem of readical Islamist opponents declared his 'powers' illegitimate and issued blood oaths to restore Mohammed Morsi, yes I said 'radical' as blood oaths are acts of violance.

Read the various comments pertaining to El'Baradei, but it conflicts; Baradei's tenure at the IAEA was one very balanced, intelliget and acute, with a strieght outlook, he with Hans Blix, disproved some of the WMD Bush Administration claims regarding Iraq's non-existent nuclear weapons program, for that he was called islamocommunist,now Islamists are condemming the bloke? Fuzzy logic. Well I guess much infighting (People in position) will be on the cards and the settling period will be a pracerious path ahead.


We have in two years witnesses many extremes, and extremes are not making the population happy, there is nothing wrong with a middle road. Whatever the case 'economics is key' and the Military will always be a factor, it will not be dismantled with ease or at all, so I see it working with the people, as the people must work with it. The question remains will the new Government(When Elected) will work for the ‘County’ and not take the lazy route (Sell out) or take a ideological highway that would geopolitically strangle Egypt, thus the people?

It has the location, it has the resources, it has the will of the people; it just needs leadership that is 'economically' driven and that can act with diplomacy, tact on a global playing field, and the ability to navigate a middle road, the rest falls into place, back to a mid-power, favored tourist destination as it once was and thus attracting investment in area like agri and removing it's food crisis, likewise where it can be selective in partners without being politically pressured or tipping the 'wheat cart'- The apparatus is as strong as its weakest link.

Now is the time to go back to basics of balanced Governance and appeasement for the population. Removing poverty and food security would be a good start, focus on the internal issues as a priority; the external relations are just distraction (Whoever) for now and can be taken on board at any time, but you need to have the house in order before inviting the guests- It has the neutral playing card, the canal, and that is Golden.

Posted by: kev | Jul 6, 2013 10:30:58 PM | 44

Can anyone recall, can anyone cast their minds back to the *last* Egyptian revolution? I mean it was only a few years ago. El-Baradei was reflexively disqualified from the 'contender pool' because of his western deference. So now he is magically IN POWER.

Yeah, I'll call shenanigans. No FACTS, beyond what we already know about his duplicity, required.

Posted by: L Bean | Jul 6, 2013 10:34:31 PM | 45

"People at MoonOfAlabama would rather see Egypt as a US colony than see it ruled by the MB, even if the MB wins more votes than the opposition in every election. That's shameful and you should think about why that is. The answer cannot be pleasant.'

Arnold, you are beginning to sound like a troll. You are better than that.
You have made your point and, for those who missed school Civics classes, your explanation of the relationship between popular sovereignty and elections must have been enlightening. By now the point will have sunk in, so let us drop it.

As to Egypt being a US colony: no it isn't.
The US wields enormous influence there, but not as much as a million people in Tahrir Square. And much less than the US government wields in Britain or Germany. The US wields great influence in many countries, as Evo Morales will attest.

The same is true of the army: the US pays it, essentially not to threaten Israel, and it doesn't threaten Israel. It pays the army because if it didn't someone else would. Or the Army might start trying to increase its popularity by standing up to the US. Or throw its weight around in Sudan or Libya, or Yemen. The way that Nasser did.

The Egyptian army is being paid to do nothing, which is very different from being paid to, for example, invade Syria or, as the Wall Street Journal wants, to become Pinochet on the Nile. It might consider that but it will cost much more and there is no guarantee that the men would agree to it.

Penny:
"Just two months ago, Secretary of State John Kerry approved $1.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Egypt – the second largest recipient of such help after Israel."
There is nothing new about this, Penny is there? Except that Kerry is now the Secretary of State.

"In the past, American aid to Egypt has included armored personnel carriers, helicopters, anti-aircraft missiles, surveillance systems, fighter jets and tanks, as well as training as the U.S. poured more than $70 billion in military and economic aid into Egypt since 1948."

To put this into context it helps to bear in mind that, from 1952 until the mid seventies, Egypt was neutral and received most of its arms and training from countries other than the US. It was certainly not a US colony under Nasser.

"On Wednesday, the same military ousted Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi"

That would be a little more than a year after they installed him, in your terms. In fact they declined to maintain him in power by using force against the tens of millions protesting against him.

The US is very powerful but it controls very little.
I am sure that Washington is far from happy about what has been going on: it fears real popular uprisings. This is a distraction, just as the troubles in Turkey are, from its campaigns against Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Obama's foreign policy is falling apart: Jordan isn't looking too good either, Yemen is wobbling again. And there is still no treaty with Karzai. South America is up in arms, how long will the Brazilians continue to prop up the neo-Duvalier regime in Haiti? The news tonight is that the NSA is spying on Brazil too, which puts the pro US media in Latin America (one of the CIA's prized assets) in a very embarrassing position. Then there is Libya...

It must be music to Washington's ears to come to these blogs and learn how the world dances to Yankee Doodle: with luck, they tell each other, these bloggers, like Arnold and Penny, may help convince Americans that we know what we are doing, that we aren't wasting their tax dollars while our dreams of Empire fade.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 6, 2013 10:45:23 PM | 46

Arnold Evans, Penny, et al:

America is not the sun and the moon. Israel is not the stars. Events can and do take place without being forced into existence by either.

The course of events is not obscure, so every secret revelation of ties to this or that is not the earth shattering act that you regard it. Egyptians were angry at the actions taken by the MB and took to the streets in massive numbers, the army reacted, and here we are now.

If the world really was as you told it, every stray dog running out into the street would be a secret zionist agent, and every flood would be the workings of us imperialist sleeper cells.

Posted by: Crest | Jul 6, 2013 10:48:29 PM | 47

I think guest77 (#40)touches a very important point, in the sense that the people's movement and army's take over of it are not the same thing. Yes people may have made a mistake and let (or even supported) army taking over, but that does not mean that they were driven by the "military" or by "cia".
If we go by thinking that every outpour of people could be described as a colour revolution just because millions have come out very suddenly then no revolution would be safe from being described as a "colour" one, including first and foremost the one that toppled Mubarak.
And just for the records I don't think of imperialism as 'omnipotent'. Generally speaking imperialism is weak and acts on impulses (just look at the support for AQ and Saddam in the 80's only to bite them back in the 90s) to band aid the situation and maintain the "rate of return" and the balance of power required by it. I really don't think that the West makes any "long-term" plans (if you just believe me just look at how zbig. has changed his tune about Syria in the course of the past year). If very often revolutions go awry it is more because people are even weaker than imperialism (the don't have the ability to make a good analysis).
In my opinion, it was not CIA ir the military which started this, it was the PEOPLE OF EGYPT. They may have bungled it up (So what's new about revolutions) and let the military take the upper hand, but it was they (the people) who started it. And just as they forced the SCAF to go for elections before, they may very well do it again.
Bread and butter, it is the bread and butter NOT the religion, if the bread and butter continue to thin out, there is a good chance that SCAF and ElBaradei will go out just as Morsi did!!

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 6, 2013 11:05:58 PM | 48

@28

Who the f*ck is Mike?

So, I guess that Cartalucci called the Syria fiasco and the rest of the arab spring while you were still giving credence to the MSM's portrayal of said neoliberal shenanigans etc kind of stings, huh?

Now that he's "retired" there's room for hmmm....what shall we call your posts? Naive but well-intentioned? On a good day maybe now that we've seen your true colors it seems.

Seriously, you may want to stop posting and think about being so dismissive of opinions that blow your thoughts out of the water as they hew more closely to reality.

Yup, I guess - according to your logic - I should think that b/c John Kerry was a Winter Soldier a couple of decades ago he's a pacifist, right?

That - also more than two decades ago - Bill/Hillary Clinton smoked pot and played radical that they're not bloodthirsty neoliberal fiends?

The rebuttal you gave me makes you look like a fool.

Seriously.

And I say that as a person who respects your opinion most of the time.

ElBaradei's on board with the neoliberal agenda, period, and to think/state otherwise makes you look old and stale.

Posted by: guest | Jul 6, 2013 11:44:14 PM | 49

Further, you say that we should pay attention to elbaradei's past over the past two decades?

Well, what about his role in the International Crisis Group, huh?

Is that bullshit just off-limits?

The fact that sat/hob-nobbed with some of the most influential Zionists in the world I guess we should just not think of all that and instead believe in ElBaradei the selfless Nobel Laureate, right?

You shit on Cartalucci's info without REBUTTING ANY OF IT telling us to look into the past of this stooge when the most recent past of this stooge consists of a person selling himself to the Zionist empire.

Hey, what's that sound?

Hmmm, sounds like MOA jumping the shark if you ask me.

Posted by: guest | Jul 6, 2013 11:54:52 PM | 50

#35 poor Penny. You have really shot yourself in the foot with this response to b's reasonable point you have a rather simplistic mechanical view on what motivates people

Your response was not politically sophisticated. One of the first rules of political debate is NOT to repeat your adversary's accusation. You repeated them three times! It just reminds everyone what your problem is. You could have addressed his points without highlighting his major complaint.

I have never responded to any of your posts for the simple reason that you seem to have simplistic mechanical views for how the world works. Really not worth addressing. But if you insist, I will post this.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 7, 2013 2:00:28 AM | 51

George Galloways first visit to Australia: lecture on syria and arab spring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc_QINI2WsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3T7Y6aUz7Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cOYLt_fHnc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHOH4kuS8xQ

Posted by: brian | Jul 7, 2013 2:13:18 AM | 52

Penny, you and others have been arguing that the Mubarak overthrow and entire "Arab Spring" was also a color revolution and the plan was to get the brothers in power all along. Now what happened? Either 1) the west changed it's mind and wants to go back to the way things were, 2) the plan was thwarted by the army, or 3) there never really was a plan and things just happened beyond their control.

Posted by: Lysander | Jul 6, 2013 7:50:34 PM | 37

its not an arguement:
The Revolution Business shows us these 'revolutions' have been made in america
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8

also
US controlling both sides of Egypt coup: Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tepea42Iwhw

Posted by: brian | Jul 7, 2013 2:20:48 AM | 53

I think people are over hyping America's role in the street protest/"coup" in Egypt. The Arab Spring's proven fact that the US has no clue on the happenings in the region. They totally missed the Egyptian revolution which led to the toppling of it's trusted and long-time ally, Mubarak..They've always been playing catchup ever since.

After Mubarak fell, they sought, like their certified puppets in Turkey and the GCC, to ride the waves of the Arab Spring to protect their strategic position. They initiated a war on Libya under the banner of Arab Spring and sought to dislodge Syria in order to "weaken" Iran - whatever that means.

What people fail to realize is that the US has ONLY ONE foreign policy objective(protection of Israel) in the region and they'll do anything, even making a deal with the devil himself, if that's what it takes to achieve it. The problem with those claiming the recent event in Egypt was a US coup is that, they tend to think from a rigid position. This is fact, the US has a core principle in the it's ME foreign policy and is ever willing to change/adapt its other policies to protect her core policy - protection of Israel.

The US backed Mubarak until it become politically untenable to do so. They decided to back the MB in Egypt and even had several top Mursi dudes making several trips to/from the US and vice-versa. The US cooperating with the MB had absolutely NOTHING to do with their love for the MB and everything to do with protecting their core ME policy - protecting Israel. The Gaza blockade wasn't lifted by Morsi, and the tunnels where being filled with sewage..So much for MB buddy, Hamas!!! The rest is just comedy.

The US has no principles when it comes to protecting their interests. They understand real-politik, something their foes/allies often misunderstand. In Afghanistan, we see them backing some faction of the Taliban to reach some form of agreement. In Libya, we see them happy to adapt and work with Al-Qaeda, through third parties(Qatar, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia) etc etc. Same scenario in Syria. In Iraq, we saw them making deal with Al-Sadr's forces and even Al-Qaeda to keep the quiet. Those are the comedies. Again, the number one driving force here is - protecting Israel.

The recent coup in Egypt has nothing to do with the US/CIA and everything to do with the decades old Qatar-Saudi war/tensions. The Saudis just funded the Egyptian army to get rid of a MB buffoon. The last thing the Saudis need, is having an MB controlled government right next door. In this scenario too, the US will huff and puff for a while but they'll adapt quickly if that's what serves the interest of Israel. The Egyptian army doesn't care about the $1.3 billion US aid if they know the Saudis will give them more than that.


I find it sad how people fall for all that "democracy" nonsense crap. Even more sad when such nonsense is being spewed from someone in the US state department. It only exists in their minds. You gotta be dreaming to believe in it.

Posted by: Zico | Jul 7, 2013 2:27:16 AM | 54

@40 kev: Sorry for the confusion. I used the term "zionist stooge" not necessarily to reflect my feelings but to acknowledge the worst-case-scenario characterizations of whoever may next take the helm in Egypt.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 2:43:50 AM | 55

48) Agree, it is the bread and butter issues.

The strength of imperialism (and capitalism) is the strength to unite and divide people and play them off. They can unite or divide using ethnic bonds, difference of life styles, ideology and religion.

For the people to win they need a unifying leadership (and ideology). It will take a while for that to emerge.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 7, 2013 2:47:44 AM | 56

So Abu Qatada's "finally" been deported to Jordan...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

I guess the MI6 has a new job for him, IN SYRIA!!! Syria's now become the dumping ground of all global Jihadist...

Posted by: Zico | Jul 7, 2013 2:48:53 AM | 57

As I'm writing, El Baradei still holds the official position of "influential citizen".

So let's not get ahead of ourselves. No telling what's about to happen.

I think the idea that the Salafist Nour party is holding him up in interesting. Is there any evidence the Saudi's are working closely with them?

The Salafist/liberal alliance taking out the MB - strange bedfellows indeed.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 3:03:18 AM | 58

@56 Somebody: "For the people to win they need a unifying leadership (and ideology). It will take a while for that to emerge."

My guess is that the MB will soon realize that if they want to play any positive future role in helping to govern Egypt, they'll have to get over this recent defeat and get back to the negotiating table. The Salafists - realizing their own tenuous position without their large, religiously oriented partner - are, no doubt, saving them a seat.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 3:11:22 AM | 59

I think the Nour people have adopted the MB's strategy of posing as ultra-radical anti-imperialists, while actually, just like the MBs, being covert western assets, but funded and managed on the ground by Saudis rather than Qataris. In general, highly organised parties with underground, illegal backgrounds can be expected to do what their leaders tell them to do, in a way that other, more individualistic, liberal actors cannot.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7, 2013 3:23:51 AM | 60

If the salafist AlNour party has just knocked Eb Baradei out of the PM's office then it only stands to reason that this was an instruction from Saudi Arabia. Also there is no way that Al Nour would have joined the street protests against Morsi without Saudi support.

Make what you want from this, but it is the simplest explanation. I have to wonder if the US was behind this. It wouldn't make too much sense, but we all have to realize that Saudi Arabia is America's closest ally in the ME.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 7, 2013 3:40:33 AM | 61

More proof that US had a finger in this and supported the coup.

When will people here wake up?!

http://presstv.com/usdetail/312631.html

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 4:38:51 AM | 62

guest77

Of course, what is the problem?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 4:40:02 AM | 63

@59 that seems to be the problem - Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood insisting on a constitution with a religious leadership, half of Egypt resisting (or vise versa old regime and liberal revolutionaries insisting on a secular state, Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis resisting)

Whilst bread prices rise for all of them, and - across party lines - part of them can switch to cake.


Posted by: somebody | Jul 7, 2013 4:43:57 AM | 64

Yeah yeah right here we go again showing that just about everyone is capable of believing in miraculous bullshit if it suits their personal feelings about an issue.
This is one of the reasons why democracy has rarely been an effective means of delivering people what they really need. Most peeps can be swayed by emotion so much that it trumps their reason.

I don't give a flying fuck about democracy as it is currently practiced either.

I don't think the coup against Morsi was a bad thing because it negated the electoral process - but I would say that those who claim the protests negated the MB mandate are hypocrites or opportunists or both.

I don't think the coup against Morsi was a bad thing because the MB were a great bunch of guys about to deliver Egypt from the chaotic mess of Libya circa 2012 to the nth order of magnitude, it has been marching towards for the last decade, because I don't believe they were.

I would say to those busy convincing themselves that the coup of last week will somehow ameliorate that disaster, that the coup will make its occurrence less likely, that they should take another look at history because, other nations who have gone down a similar route of allowing a major player that is meant to be non-political (the army which is almost always the agency which does this)repeatedly change the political leadership ends up being governed by their army always more brutally than anything that went before.

When the military in South Vietnam,Greece, or Guatemala first changed the government the officers leading the way probably had the purest of motives. If they had gone in leveled the playing field & got out straight away there is every chance that a capable political structure would have evolved. But they didn't pull out straight away - they hung around too long trying to make the revolution honest. Instead of the revolution staying on the straight & narrow what happened was that the military themselves became corrupted by politics.
Very quickly their objective shifted from staying in control to keep the buggers honest to just staying in control.
Once that happened everything got much worse - unsurprising really because we all know what military organisations are about. That is, the military's bottom line for getting what they want is violence. That is their specialty the one thing they are better at than everyone else, and the thing they always fall back upon when other options have gone.

The reason I know that the military coup against Morsi is a bad thing, that will be detrimental to Egypt & Egyptians far more than a term of Morsi presidency could be is that there is simply no way that this coup could have been effected so quickly & efficiently without foreign assistance.

None of the apologists for the coup have managed to satisfactorily explain that - though admittedly few have even tried.
There are amusing ironies around this. Peeps who think nothing of claiming the amerikan government has been involved in some of the craziest most arcane plots that would require thousands of low pay grade operators staying schtum for ever, are now claiming that this can't be backed by the amerikans because oblamblam says so, & is acting uncertain of whether he thinks it a good or a bad thing. Just like with Honduras in 2009 when oblamblam pulled exactly the same stunt. When CIA involvement was proven later nothing happened.

Just like with Honduras not all the mass media outlets began their opinions in support of the coup. This is unsurprising it is likely that the architects considered trying to achieve that more hassle than it was worth. There would be every chance of the story leaking & support from the western media wasn't as critical in the first few says as ensuring the MB couldn't get its message out to Egyptians -something which happened in a far more controlled way than the army's crack at media management during the 2011 anti-mubarak protests.

If you haven't noticed the western media is moving onside. Even those who initially objected to the trammeling of the democratic process are now beginning to sing the same song as many peeps in here "Get over it MB. Morsi's gone, we gotta look forwards not back".

Now the army has effected a coup for the 2nd time in two years (remember the anti-mubarak protests only succeeded once mubarak lost the support of the new guard of the military) there is zero chance of Egypt's political system meeting the aspirations of Egyptians. As for those who think that the army is gonna let any politician get into power advocating a softening of egypt's zionism enabling policy needs to do work on their logic.

The army has shown what it will do to any pollie whose policies they don't like, surely people aren't suggesting that the army would 'like' a policy that would cost them a billion & a half dollars a year?
I gotta stop coming back in here. I keep thinking maybe now the penny will drop, but peeps have cemented themselves into their opinions and only time and emotion (most likely anger at some of the stuff that happens in egypt over the next coupla years) will change that opinion.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 7, 2013 4:55:56 AM | 65

65) sure, it was neither a revolution, nor a coup as the army was in control all the time ... :-))

However, did, you miss a major difference to other military dictatorships - since Mubarak, the Egyptian army needs a democratic front, and it needs a front people are satisfied with, as the present chaos has a similar effect to a continuous general strike and the Egyptian army are business people. It is too massive for the army to contain.
Foreign - and presumably Egyptian - investment has fled the country and the central bank has to devalue the currency.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 7, 2013 5:12:25 AM | 66

somebody

Actually the military have great ties to the business in egypt, for one they are part of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 5:19:30 AM | 67

@63 Anon "Of course, what is the problem?"

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

@ Debs

That's a whole bunch of crystal ball bullshit, not far off from the comments you're worked up about. Oh, And you know it.

This will advance. Organizations will come out against the army. The army may well rely on violence like you suggest. But I do have a feeling that them indiscriminately blowing away thousands of civilians just may be one of those policies that they might have to think "would cost them a billion & a half dollars a year" don't you think?

There's a big chance that may not be even able to convince the young cadres to fire on their brothers and sisters without a revolt. It's entirely possible that the army contains its own contradictions and splits and would fall apart if it was ordered to murder large amounts of civilians.

I don't mind telling you that you're forecast of "zero percent chance" of anything, based your "study of history" and apparently superior "logic" counts for about the same as anyone else here trying to channel the future about a situation where people are willing to risk their lives to achieve a given goal. You've spet a lot of time on the Great Egyptian Army but Not one second on the fact that you never can tell what people are capable of when they're organized and angry.

As for the "no way that this coup could have been effected so quickly & efficiently without foreign assistance" what exactly the fuck do you think the Egyptian Army has file cabinets full of plans for? Invading Israel? Conquering Greece? They're whole reason to exist - except for the lucrative industrial concerns which problem trumps even the following - is to keep the Egyptian population control whether that means APCs, m60s and 130,000 teargas cans or flying helicopters with giant Egyptian flags on them. I don't think they need "foreign help" to do quickly something they've probably been planning for since 2001.

Again, you can't reduce this to "foreign plot". Millions don't get risk their lives on the streets for a "foreign plot".

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 5:34:32 AM | 68

Tony Blair has come out in favour of the coup this morning. That, if anything, should make us stop and think there's something nasty going on.

Egyptian army had no choice over move to topple Morsi, says Tony Blair

Another thing I read this morning is that the queues for petrol are very recent - only from June - and of course the petrol supply is controlled by the army. This is worth investigating. Could be that it was a setup job. Hmmm.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 7, 2013 5:51:02 AM | 69

Webster Tarpley, in his usual slightly melodramatic, plot-spinning way, has inferred that Kerry ("Jackass Kerry" as I always call him, I don't know why) instructed Mursi to order the Egyptian Army to invade Syria, and that is why they gave him the push.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7, 2013 5:54:18 AM | 70

@56 Somebody: "For the people to win they need a unifying leadership (and ideology). It will take awhile for that to emerge."
It will take perhaps several iterations before Egypt will settle, similar to Bolivia until Evo came along! What is needed is a break from the neo-liberal economics, until then the revolution is not complete. We should concentrate on our own backyard and let the Egyptians do to theirs!.

Posted by: hans | Jul 7, 2013 6:06:54 AM | 71

guest77

Are you confused? You asked me if there is MB vs liberal camp for the US.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 6:16:46 AM | 72

@Alexno, Tony Blair is a fanatic as much as the Brotherhood are, the 'Office of Tony Blair' AKA Blair Inc, suck donor funding in the name of 'Christian values' like hells vampires, is just another religious/Political flag waver, as well as being inept. He is just chasing funding, we will see many more doing so.

He has spent millions of donor (Tax monies) ranting around Africa. I met some of his 'hoodies' in Sierra Leone, all Uni grads high on the hope of 'saving people' via 4x4 SUV's, Air con office space and lunch meeting bitching about misspelling on menus and why half the menu does not exist, not realizing in that is the problem, most utterly clueless on the ground or on cultural matters, supporting Femdoms seemed to take a high priority with a ‘Flare of Blair’ but being sanctimonious peons.

The then Middle East Peace Envoy, but a different reality - Blair should be prosecuted for war crimes.

State owned Companies by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the biggest clients of Tony Blair's services, so that would be the place to see what his game plan is, but in my opinion Blair is just filling up his coffers, it what he does best; a reward of his past position and now calling in his chips for what he did as PM.


Posted by: kev | Jul 7, 2013 6:25:52 AM | 73

re 73 kev

but in my opinion Blair is just filling up his coffers

No, he's doing that, but he also still has a political role (as he himself wants). If he speaks in favour of the coup, that means there probably was western planning for the event, as he's a spokesperson for the warmongers.

Posted by: alexno | Jul 7, 2013 6:35:20 AM | 74

@62 - I have a fair share of scepticism towards presto, however the NYT runs a similar story: Morsi Spurned Deals, Seeing Military as Tamed (via The Arabist). If this pans out further, that will be a source of serious trouble for the US going forward.

@65 - DiD. Please don't go away! I always enjoy your pieces, even if I don't always agree. As is the case with your comment here. What is currently happening in Egypt is bigger. And I see the reaction of the Egyptian army, with or without the help of mother US, as a panic reaction ( desesparately (?) trying to keep things under some control) rather than proactive (get things back in control). The 'help' of the US may possibly even be some after-thought.

Posted by: Philippe | Jul 7, 2013 6:36:14 AM | 75

Alexno re: 74, Blair has too much baggage to be the UK voice, the most recent , Tony Blair has denied allegations he had a marriage-ending affair with Rupert Murdoch’s third wife, Wendi Deng AKA 'Chinese magic love potion'.

More so for this region and if dealing with 'People power' rather than a dictator, given his past dealings, it would hit the ground running in failure, this is a different game in round 2.

Still feel this is just TB/PR and 'Dirty Cash for money talks'. Lastly, I think Cameron has seen the danger of aping Tony Blair (Iraq), but then again you could be right, nothing surprises me anymore. We will just need to wait and see...

Posted by: kev | Jul 7, 2013 7:08:33 AM | 76

Qatar's Sheikh Hamad stands down, the Muslim Brotherhood Government is brought down in Egypt and, for the first time, a non-Brotherhood 'president' has now been chosen to lead the Syrian political opposition - all within in two weeks.

I suspect that these events are not entirely independent.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Jul 7, 2013 8:22:37 AM | 77

$US1.3 billion a year isn't much. The Fed gives Goldman Sachs that much every week. George Osborne once wrote off a Vodafone tax bill of £6 billion. If I was an Egyptian general, I would feel insulted.

Posted by: Bob Jackson | Jul 7, 2013 8:29:42 AM | 78

Great debate everybody, convincing and well presented arguments on all sides.

My own take on Egyptian Revolution 2.0 is similar to that of guest77, in as that we haven't seen the end of this. The genie is out of the bottle as Egyptians en masse (unlike the docile muppets in the West) have realised there is strength in numbers and that no leader, no matter which way he made it to the top, can push through agendas against the will of those prepared to stand up if there is enough of them standing up.

As much as I am sad to hear of the abrupt end to Egypt's short lived adventure into democracy, I am certainly not surprised. Since Morsi came to power his government did diddly squat to engage with the population at large. You'd think that after having been oppressed for so long and now having been given the keys to the kingdom, Mursi and the MB would have been more careful in the course they chart, thought things through. But no, one plunder after another.

Blind Freddy could see that after Mubarak's fall and the MB winning elections there were three power centers - the Mursi government, the military and the street. To keep the military at bay, he needed to have the street on his side. What did Morsi do?

On the domestic front he divided rather than unified the nation, not what is needed after decades of dictatorship and his foreign policy was a shocker. As others have noted earlier, during his time in office he has shown no goodwill towards the poor souls trapped in Gaza and encouraged Egyptians to go north and die in a civil war on the side of Israel sponsored AQ fuckwits.

He like Mubarak showed no transparency, continued the jobs for the boys scheme and on top of that alienated the moderate and secular parts of the population. By not being inclusive and compassionate with his fellow Egyptians and maintaining the positive spirit on the streets after Mubarak's fall, he left himself open to exactly the scenario that's playing out now, the military partnering with the street to oust him instead. Unfortunately for Egypt its back to square one, military rule, but seeing the many stupid and unnecessary decisions they made I can't feel sorry for Morsi or the MB as a whole.

Winning an election with 13 million votes in a nation of 80 million people means that 67 million haven't given their approval. Fatal mistake to not take this reality into account when making policies.

Based on what is known and the fashion in which it unfolded, I have to agree with those comments who find it more than likely that USrael and its minions have played a role in the overthrow. To what extend though we'll probably never find out. For Egyptians who had a gut full of Morsi's policies after his first year in office it probably wouldn't have made much difference.

Egypt doesn't have decades old democratic structures, with a populace politically asleep to the point that no matter what crimes and atrocities their governments commit they'll wait out the legislative period and then vote the same lying sacks of shits back in.

No, Egypt at this point in time has a different kind of democracy, one that is still forming and where people after countless years of being oppressed are too impatient to give some tool an entire 4 years when after 1 they can already tell he is not the man to take the country forward.

That being said, who knows how this will play out in the long run. The MB might even end up profiting from this coup. It will certainly help their cause being able to claim they were the popularly elected government removed by foreign interest groups. They were the victims of this military coup and should in the near term economic conditions not improve or even worsen, if they play their cards right might be able to surf on the counter wave back into government.

But whoever gets to run the country faces massive financial problems. The nation is bankrupt, with the government spending 26% of its revenues on paying interest alone. Those couple of billions given by foreign donors will make no difference over the longer term, apart from them all coming with strings attached requiring the government to dance to other nations tunes.

To gain independence, Egypt has to default on most of its loans, period. It is unsustainable to expend a quarter of ones income on interest. Under these conditions Egyptians will never be able to grow their way back to prosperity, regardless if there is a next election and if so who wins it.

The government needs to have an honest and open discussion with its people on how they collectively can move forward. Consensus building should be the foremost task of whoever holds power. Channel this sense of renewal present in today's Egypt into support for a plan to move towards the light at the end of the tunnel and I'd be surprised if the country couldn't pull itself up by its bootstraps.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jul 7, 2013 8:49:15 AM | 79

Pat Bateman

If you check the history of choosing a leader for syrian opposition, THAT has been the objective every time (that is, to chose a "neutral" leader). Nothing new.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 8:55:33 AM | 80

77) of course and though Erdogan is a conspiracy theorist, and his police is responsible for sparking country wide protests (or maybe this is part of the conspiracy) I guess the press coverage of Istanbul protests is no coincidence either, especially after having praised the Turkish oppressive ballot box regime for quite a while.

The lines of friend or foe get complicated again when Iran comes out in support of Morsy and Assad parties on the defeat of political Islam :-))

Posted by: somebody | Jul 7, 2013 8:58:47 AM | 81

"Penny, you and others have been arguing that the Mubarak overthrow and entire "Arab Spring" was also a color revolution and the plan was to get the brothers in power all along. Now what happened? Either 1) the west changed it's mind and wants to go back to the way things were, 2) the plan was thwarted by the army, or 3) there never really was a plan and things just happened beyond their control."

Posted by: Lysander | Jul 6, 2013 7:50:34 PM | 37

1: a change in plans
2: The Arab Springs are indeed revamped colour revolutions

We have to always,always understand there is more then 1 plan for the elites to deal with any given situation.
Egypt, Libya, Syria. so forth and so on
There is a plan a, plan b, plan c, plan d etc
It is absurd to think the ptb's have one plan and that is it.

When the war planners plan wars they game several strategies, obviously
This is war. And the planners have several strategies on how to achieve success.
They are flexible.
The money thrown at the Egyptian military is obviously done to buy influence in the region. Influence is needed to maneuver pieces on the chess board to achieve a goal.
This should be pretty straight forward, obvious stuff to the commenters and readers here and yet...it's not and I do not understand why that is?

But, I will run a thought past you Lysander

Something I said about the power of a story
People love stories. They are wired that way.
A story holds power. And if the story has certain components in it, that people want to believe. They believe it

Some want to believe that the Egyptian people made this happen.
They didn't. They participated. They were drawn to it for good and legitimate reasons. But the strings were pulled by others..

The only way that people are going to get that which they desire is to work together outside of the corrupted system
Because a corrupt system and the global governmental NGO system is entirely corrupt is not made, wasn't created to serve the needs of the people

Hoping that is clear enough?


Posted by: Penny | Jul 7, 2013 9:06:09 AM | 82

ToivoS | Jul 7, 2013 2:00:28 AM | 51

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted by: Penny | Jul 7, 2013 9:38:38 AM | 83

As a politician with the top bottle-washer post, ex-president of the Freedom and Justice party, Morsi made alliances that were counter-nature, and too many of them.

Parts of the old Mubarak regime, the Army, USisr, Qatar...

To be fair, while one can espouse the new broom sweeps clean approach, on the ground and in the country itself, one often has to deal with that sh*t, and integrate or tolerate old elements. (i realise i am using cleaning metaphors, i’ll try for a few more.)

At the same time, as ex-leader, president, of the MB, he sought to brother-ize, sorry for the neologism, the country, by all and any means -nominating those regional guvs was really over the top-, and would not play the democratic game of reaching out to local political opponents, integrating some, forming political alliances over circumstancial issues, and so forth.

He ignored 50% of the voters and a higher % of citizens.

This, in itself, was bound to lead to disaster.

Add in that he seems self-satisfied, old-fashioned, boring and pig-headed and has little political experience (as W types like myself would see it.)

Some ways back I used the image of Morsi as King and some objected to it, he is elected by the ppl, yada yada. But Egypt ain’t Norway, and this is the way Kings behave. Or at least modern-day Kings - who seek alliances with power, money, banking, with social conservatism and religious values, plus minimal social aid, keeping the populace at home in its place, etc. (Oh and with a wee bit of help from the street cleaners, the police and the judiciary..)

Political Islam is a joke, but a joke many want, or strategically prefer, to believe in. Before I’m accused of orientalism, if the ppl of Egypt want Sharia law (or whatever type of hyper-traditionalist method to regulate society) I don’t judge that to be inferior to for ex. the US new slavery system, the industrial-prison complex.

In Egypt, civil and ‘democratic’ institutions, as well as branches of Gvmt. (e.g. Ministry of Health..) or other, e.g. a teacher’s union, or whatever, or public-private partnerships, with *some* independent power (legislated or just bargaining, argumentative, power plays...), are weak or non-existent, and under Morsi, didn’t attain ‘nascent’ to use NYT vocabulary, stature.

So there’s that, a kind of structural issue, inherited from the past, but Morsi was, as a compromise candidate, representing the largest voting block, supposed to kick-start that kind of process. But No. So the top bottle-washer bears heavy responsibility and is at risk for being ousted.

In Egypt, the Army is not just National Defense, subsumed to a Government, but a prime and perhaps (?) supreme political and economic mover, power-house. The MB formed a pol. party (for obvious reasons, the vote..) the Army cannot, and doesn’t wish to, they can act alternatively front-stage or behind-the-curtains and there ain’t nobody to call them to account. (See the massive support from secularists etc., too naive..) Quarreling about semantics is trivia, but a military coup - officially it might seem to be so - is perhaps not the right term.

A powerful, unintegrated, independent, semi-rogue, section of society, invested with legacy power, part of a Shadow Gvmt. etc. is calling the shots. It moves when it is forced to act, only in its own interests, basically, acquiring a front-man that preserves its position.

So it plays the National Interest Card, the We Stop Violence Card. The MB crowd with Morsi as Top Organiser (with his US engineering management handbook) proved to be too clumsy and detested by too many.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 7, 2013 10:25:23 AM | 84

Bulgaria shows Egypt how things are supposed to be done

"If nothing else helps, if there are not even attempts to reach agreement, then the only democratic solution is elections," Rosen Plevneliev said.

The parliament, not the president, has the power to call new elections.

Bulgaria has been in political turmoil for months. The current government took office after a snap election in May.

"There have been incessant protests in Bulgaria for 22 days now and I still do not see politicians making a clear effort to take notice of what is happening and explain to the nation in plain terms what they will do about it," President Plevneliev complained in a national address.

The latest demonstrations, by thousands of people in the capital Sofia and other cities, erupted in mid-June over the controversial appointment of a media mogul, Delyan Peevski, as head of the national security agency.

Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski, who heads a Socialist-led coalition, later revoked the appointment and apologised, but protests against his coalition government continued.

His predecessor as prime minister, Boiko Borisov, resigned in February after big street protests about high electricity prices, austerity measures and mismanagement.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 7, 2013 10:52:53 AM | 85

@Anon I don't recall asking you anything.

If you could gladly play the helpful little game of either providing a quote or a post number before you make your masturbatory self-aggrandizing statements, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 11:53:35 AM | 86

Oh Anon, @43 I see now.

The confusion was that I wasn't actually talking directly to you, do you see your name there?

I know full well you think that being an Islamist somehow confers onto one some special Egyptianess that your average infidel cannot ever achieve. I was asking others if they buy into that same small-minded, US/Israeli-defined sectarian outlook.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 11:57:42 AM | 87

With all the debates about policy (for reference, I didn't like Morsi, but I think a US-supported coup by the army is going backwards), there has been very little here on what is probably the largest driver behind the recent Egyptian uprisings. Here is a good article by Matt Mushalik on Egypt's oil situation. Egypt was an oil exporter until a few years ago, which allowed it to subsidize oil domestically. Now it has begun to have to purchase oil at world price. Two-thirds of Egypt's oil is now gone. The situation is set to get worse and worse every year from here on out.

Posted by: Marty | Jul 7, 2013 12:25:49 PM | 88

Marty, you know what the greatest joke of all is regarding Egypt and the oil? It's this: most of the oil from the Gulf to the West (Europe, the Americas, whomever) goes through a large pipeline which runs diagonally right across Egypt. No-one has ever bombed it, or even harrassed its doubtless derisory guards. The 200-mile long SUMED Pipeline, or Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline, provides an alternative to the Suez Canal for those cargos too large to transit through the Canal (laden VLCCs and larger). The crude oil flows through two parallel pipelines that are 42 inches in diameter, with a total pipeline capacity of around 2.4 million bbl/d. Oil flows north through Egypt, and is carried from the Ain Sukhna onshore terminal on the Red Sea coast to its end point at the Sidi Kerir terminal on the Mediterranean. The SUMED is owned by Arab Petroleum Pipeline Co, a joint venture between the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC), Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi's National Oil Company (ADNOC), and Kuwaiti companies. It's the third chokepoint after Hormuz and Malacca on the page below:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=wotc

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 7, 2013 2:23:14 PM | 89

guest77

Again you seems very confused.

Here is your question.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/07/on-el-baradei-and-other-thoughts-on-egypt.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef0192abe6e5c6970d

You should show some respect, insulting people on the internet tells us alot about yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 5:22:55 PM | 90

@anon. Yeah, and again, it wasn't addressed to you.

And I most definitely will not show respect to disrespectful people who have proven themselves to be self-absorbed and slightly dull, and pathetic sycophants - people like yourself in case you missed the hint.

Respect is something you earn you little clown.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 5:42:38 PM | 91

guest77

Then you shouldnt quote me.
Keep insulting me if thats whats boosts your self esteem :)

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 6:09:47 PM | 92

I'm pointing out to people that there is a strain of thinking seems to think that "Islamist/Secularist" makes a shit of a difference while there are 82 million lives are being ground down into nothing by neo-liberal policies. I really don't think anyone gets sucked in by that logic - the same logic that is driving Sunnis to behead Shia over nothing but some invented differences based on sect. The same base human emotions Morsi was just about to inflame by sending young men into Syria because he is unable to steer Egypt towards being a functioning society.

Though obviously not even directed at you, you offered a useless non-sequitur apparently because you think it's funny to come needle people over the internet like a little child.

You're really just an insult yourself Anon. You don't need my help.

I anxiously await your next childish response. Perhaps "I'm rubber you are glue..." or something similar.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 7, 2013 6:57:50 PM | 93

guest77

Actually both MB and the liberal camp propose liberalization of Egypt regarding the economy, apparently you deny egyptians the free will to choose neo-liberal actions. Egypt have tried central-command for decades, time to switch up from soviet-based state as you seems to propose.
If Mursi was an allied of Assad you wouldnt be making these comments.

Again feel free to insult me, but you need to be more creative :)

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 7, 2013 7:08:26 PM | 94

what have elections in US or UK or France etc ever accomplished? they put in power the likes of Blair Bush Obama Hollande etc

consider:

US Ambassador to Austria Reportedly Responsible for False Claim Snowden Was on Bolivian Leader’s Plane
By: Kevin Gosztola Friday July 5, 2013 10:27 am

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/07/05/us-ambassador-to-austria-reportedly-responsible-for-false-claim-snowden-was-on-bolivian-leaders-plane/

so 4 countries with elected govts decide to ignore the will of the people and serve the will of the US regime..

what good is 'democracy'?

Posted by: brian | Jul 7, 2013 7:23:02 PM | 95

Was Morsi really an advocate for non-violence, a bringer of peace and a sign of unity? - June 2013, politicians called by Morsi were overheard suggesting attacking Ethiopia to stop it from building a dam on a Nile tributary.

Mori leaves and al-Qaeda 'appears' to have stepped in, if you connect the dots (Assumption) it means Morsi has the backing and the connections to/form al-Qaeda, or simply they allowed him to operate, but it must have had ‘rules’ and payback, or blessing, it's how they role. This connect is also from his past and rooted in his hometown; The Salafi Jihadi organization in Sharqiya. Likewise one can see that disconnect with Morsi and Syria, al-Qaeda are the Brotherhood 'hoods', it’s bouncers, due collectors, protection and enforcers andsending fractions into Syria against Assad.

Morsi attended an Islamist rally on 15 June 2013, where salafi clerics called for "holy war" in Syria and denounced supporters of Bashar al-Assad as "infidels". His paymasters Qatar (One of many) who also have an al-Qaeda office now and has declared that it would provide Egypt with US$2 billion just as Morsi announced the reshuffle in the cabinet on 12 August 2012.[100] Meanwhile investors from Qatar have pledged to invest 10 billion in Egyptian infrastructure.

Post Morsi - Gunmen in pickup trucks attacked four checkpoints in the loosely-controlled Egyptian territory of Sinai, Salafi Jihadi, one of the leading extremist groups, has linked the violence in Sinai with the toppling of Mohamed Morsi earlier this week. The Salafi Jihadi organization in Sharqiya, Morsy’s hometown.

Here is a interesting site, moreove if you can’t get your head around the religious elements, more so if you’re not Islamic. It is informative, although I can’t say if it’s accurate in its entirety, the link is to al-Qaeda/Egypt piece;

http://www.jihadica.com/al-qaida-advises-the-arab-spring-egypt/

What is equally interesting was the Newstatesman piece Feb 2011‘This is not an Islamic revolution’ in context of what is occurring today.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/02/egypt-arab-tunisia-islamic

Posted by: kev | Jul 7, 2013 11:16:31 PM | 96

So did Arnold tell Penny to come and attack this thread, or was it the other way around?

And since when is WikiLeaks a "Zionist" plot? (Hint to Penny: The reflexive and compulsive use of the word "Zionist" -- especially in an unfavorable manner -- lets everyone know what you're really about.)

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Jul 7, 2013 11:51:49 PM | 97

This will interest you: Certain disinfological sources (such as Christoph Lehmann’s NSNBC) falsely claim that the Egyptian State Information Service issued a statement on Apr 21 2013 rejecting the IMF loan. In fact, a joint statement on Apr 21 by the IMF and the Egyptian delegation in Washington confirmed that an agreement was expected within the next few weeks. The director of Egypt’s Central Bank, Hisham Ramez, said that he expected negotiations to reach agreement in April or May. On Apr 24 2013, Morsi’s spokesman Ehab Fahmy said that negotiations with the IMF over the loan had almost reached a successful conclusion.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 8, 2013 1:32:14 AM | 98

#96 kev Just to keep this in context

The end of moderate Islam?

...

Aliriza is an experienced scholar who has been following the region closely for more than three decades now. Here is the question we started to discuss that night: Does the toppling of Morsi mark the end of the American concept of “moderate Islam”? Was the U.S. statement made right after an emergency meeting by U.S. President Barack Obama (see picture), who did not even denounce the toppling, committed only after a year of the Ihvan-i Muslimin, or Muslim Brotherhood, rule in Egypt as a coup, the end of an era practically started with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on the last day of 1979?

By a bitter coincidence of history, another Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, had signed the directive on July 3, 1979 to start delivering assistance to the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviet-backed coup a year earlier. Was Obama’s failing to stand by Morsi on the same day after 34 years a silent acknowledgement by Americans that the political game via the Islamic faith was also over?


...


To cut a long story short, when al-Qaeda and the Taliban proved to be the bad boys especially following the 9/11 terrorism in 2001, a new concept of ‘moderate’ Islam started to be pumped around. These are politicians of Islamic origin but rejecting violence, adopting free politics and free economy.

The rise of the Justice and Development Party (AK Parti) in Turkish politics could not be a perfect example for that, since Turkey had adopted a secular system and gone into multiparty politics and a free economy decades ago, after a lot of ups and downs marked by military coups – which were all tolerated by the U.S. and Europe. American analysts suggested a new wing in the Ihvan movement in Egypt and other Muslim countries, inspired by Tayyip Erdoğan’s AK Parti, could have served as an antidote to “radical” Islam. Perhaps July 3 marked the end of that theory.

There remains another question to be answered. Is it possible at all to have a true democracy without separating the state from religion with bold lines? The Turkish answer to that was “no” decades ago; Egypt’s experience says “no” too, if anyone wants to hear it.


From Turkey who should know. Officially the US has called it "moderate Islam". Covert however they and their Western partners have supported groups close to Al Qeida well after 9/11 -like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group whose leader is in a role of power now in Libya. Hillary got herself photographed with them when visiting Libya. They have supported allies of Al Qeida in Syria. They tried to coordinate "Sunni political Islam" to fight against Iran. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is part of that plan.

Egyptians got it right when they had posters "Obama supports terrorists".

I think there has been a US policy change. And what we are seeing this summer is the result of it.

Posted by: somebody | Jul 8, 2013 1:46:22 AM | 99

People like guest77, kev, somebody have alot to explain why they supported this violent coup. Atleast 16 Mursi supporters killed past hours.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 8, 2013 2:27:26 AM | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.

 

Site Meter