Harry – The deaths attributable to Communism and Fascism are not due to lack of religion, or to atheism, that was just trend, being different. Most Fascist regimes were superficially religious.

Explain - ‘Radical Islamism’? Is this; Islamism, Militant Islam, Islamic extremism Or what? In that is the problem, is segregation, in-fighting, one could just say Arabs hate Arab, and likewise Arabs hate Persians etc. Thus it is pretty easy to create conflict - just say something or draw a cartoon! This stems from the ardent and inbred belief of Polytheism and invented by the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria to argue with the Greeks (Shock). When Christianity spread throughout Europe and the Mediterranean, non-Christians were just called Gentiles (a term originally used by Jews to refer to non-Jews) or pagans (locals) or, in a clearly pejorative idolaters (worshiping "false" gods). ) a fault in most religions to argue they are right (Back to segregation). Or simplistically - all religions have inherent in them the concept that I am right and all other believers are wrong and that alone is idiotic.

Irony here, historical ‘polytheistic’ pantheons were in fact the Egyptian gods!

The rejection of belief in the existence of deities, atheists make up about 2.3% of the world's population, while a further 11.9% are nonreligious, so an clear minority, If I was black, disabled, gay, and an atheist, I would still have less chance playing ‘Victim’ card simply for the ‘latter’ than being Jewish for example. Yet as someone who has no religion, and by choice, it far graver, and from all sides.
Take all that one step further - Irreligion, or irreligious such as myself as I don’t want religion as it does not improve my life or better my life, in fact most of global strife is religious based. I was afforded an educated and experienced outlook and decision based on options I was given by my parents. Yet; being irreligious we are all too often displayed as people that follow a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion, when in fact we are not, we just don’t follow any religions path.

My parents one Catholic the other Protestant decided it would be best for me to make my own mind up at an age where I could rationally decide, rather than be indoctrinated. In turn have been isolated; back to ‘Religion segregates’. And not from the outside alone, but the inside. In that, democracies protect the freedom of religion, and it is largely implied in respective legal systems that those who do not believe or observe any religion are allowed freedom of thought. However, few national constitutions explicitly protect the right to not believe in a religion, and that in today’s world is so very apparent. That is in an democratic society, so imagine that in one less understanding!
What I don’t get is the term loosely chucked is; ‘Secular’, in politics as it is total absurdity and utter BS, likewise in this context...It is just one of those words thrown in because someone used it and the rest don’t even comprehend the meaning ‘In context’.

Now into context, why focus on ‘religion’ and I am not saying religion causes all Wars, this is industrial and economic, it is using the ‘Religions’ as a tool. Why, as it does and will segregate, a quick method to side or divide sides in the masses! The dogma here is the play on nationalism, religion and racism. When the players are playing on the desperate human need for certainty, and the criminals that arise to fulfill this need, whether religious, fascist or racist that are the uniform source of the problem. More credulity, more slavish obedience to bigger and even more terrifying masters is not the antidote to totalitarianism. Reason, skepticism and outright ridicule is. It has nothing to do with God, but the ‘rulers’, all too human, and I hear the violin being played...

Penny - 100% correct...

Posted by: kev | Jul 4 2013 12:17 utc | 101

Assad making some weird statements, that policial islam is failing and isnt working. Quite strange since hes allied by Iran and Hezbollah which both are in one way or another religious players.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 12:38 utc | 102

Kev @ 101
sometimes I feel that I am stating what should be so obvious and yet it isn't?
why?
because people are so blinkered/blinded by their beliefs in what something is or isn't
They can't see what is smacking them right in the face?
shakes head

Posted by: Penny | Jul 4 2013 12:52 utc | 103

Jun 23, 2013 - Ethiopia is building a giant hydropower dam on the Nile. The project, however, makes Egypt unhappy, as its water supply could be threatened.

Nothing better than a diversion,democracy at its finest.the payoff will be the libyan oil fields.that can only be achieved with a combination of a military dictatorship and a dispute leading to egyptian forces entering libya to fight off "terrorists" and securing the oilfields
so a ready made needs to be played

benghazi will be next

Posted by: mcohen | Jul 4 2013 12:59 utc | 104

Forgive me, but this interview, at Open Democracy, with the exiled Egyptian communist Samir Amin is worth close attention:

Samir Amin, Egyptian philosopher and economist, director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, talks about the last year in Egypt with the Brotherhood in power, interviewed by Giuseppe Acconcia.

...

Acconcia: What do you think about the Tamarod’s campaign?

Samir Amin: The Tamarod’s campaign for the Morsi dismissal is magnificent. Millions of people signed their names after giving deep political consideration to what they were doing: something totally ignored by the international mainstream media. They represent the majority of all the electoral constituencies, but they do not have any voice. The Muslim Brothers wield political power and like to think they can control 100% of the votes. Thus, they ensured members of the movement in every public sector. Their way of managing the country is informed by a type of crony capitalism which simply does not leave any room for the opposition figures and technocrats who had some power even in the Mubarak era.

A: This is happening during the worst economic crisis of recent decades

Samir Amin: There is more than an economic crisis. Islamists have only ultraliberal answers to give to the crisis: they have replaced the capitalists’ bourgeois clique that were Mubarak’s friends with reactionary businessmen. Moreover, their goal is quite simply to sell off public goods. The Brotherhood is hated by Egyptians because it continues with the same policies as its predecessor.

A: Maybe worse in the case of the Islamic Finance Bill?

Samir Amin: It is theft to attach derisory prices to goods that are worth billions of dollars. These are not the usual privatizations that reactionary regimes indulge in, selling off goods at their economic value. This is pure fraud more than a privatization.

A: Recalling the stages of this year with the Brotherhood in power - Morsi won after eight days of uncertainty and finally the elimination of the Nasserist, Hamdin Sabbahi, in the first round. Were the 2012 presidential elections manipulated?

Samir Amin: There was massive electoral fraud. Hamdin Sabbahi could have passed into the second round, but the US Embassy did not want it. European observers listened to their American diplomatic counterparts and turned a blind eye to the fraud involved. Moreover, the five million votes for Sabbahi were squeaky clean and highly motivated. On the other hand, the five million votes for Morsi came from the most wretched part of the population, devoid of political conscience: the votes of people willing to be bought off for a piece of bread and a glass of milk.

A: But would you agree that the sharpest clashes between the presidency and demonstrators broke out last November as a consequence of the presidential decree that extended Morsi’s powers?

Samir Amin: Morsi got going with a few weeks of demagogic speechifying, promising to listen to the other political contestants. After that, it soon became clear the extent to which the President was a puppet with the Gulf countries pulling the strings out of sight. He became a mere instrument of the murshid’s will - that of Mohammed Badie, Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood.

A: The historic support to the Palestinians had been shelved as well?

Samir Amin: The Egyptian Muslim Brothers support Israel, like the Gulf countries and Qatar do. They have always adopted an anti-Zionist discourse, but this was just an ongoing deception. The Qatari Emir, for example, is quite used to saying one thing and then doing the opposite, given the complete absence of public opinion. Now Egypt is supporting the worst type of opposition in Syria, as do the most reactionary western powers. The end result is that the majority of the western weapons furnished to the rebels are being used to finance the very worst outcome in Syria.

A: Is this why Morsi supported the creation of a Free Trade Area in the Sinai, favouring an economic relationship with Israel?

Samir Amin: This is a huge loss to Egypt. The effects of the new Free Trade Area will not be the imagined industrialization of the region, but the perpetration of a huge fiscal fraud. This will strengthen small mafias and the dismantling of public assets. In the end, the Brotherhood would accept all the conditions of the International Monetary Fund and the expected loan will accordingly come to fruition despite the fact that corruption and financial scandal have spread all over the country.

A: So how do you see the acceptance of the Constitution written by the Muslim Brotherhood, last December?

Samir Amin: This is a dictatorship of the majority. However, judges put up the strongest and indeed an unprecedented fight against the ratification of the constitutional referendum results. But it is clear that the ultimate goal of Freedom and Justice (the political party of the Brotherhood) is to build-up a theocracy on the Iranian model.

A: To conclude, is there anything left to preserve in this year of Morsi’s presidency?

Samir Amin: The lumpen proletariat is easily manipulated, and a fortiori would not obtain anything by the upheaval Morsi’s overthrow will bring. Moreover, the division of power the Brotherhood has with the army who is behind the scenes, ready to intervene, is full of ambiguity. The military personnel, as a class, are corrupt - a corruption guaranteed by American help, and carefully composed of segments of different classes, divided into political currents, many of them close to the Brotherhood and the Salafists.

However, with normal elections, with a period of democratic preparation, the Brotherhood will be beaten. But if this is not going to happen, next October there will be a more repressive climate and the vote will be manipulated by widespread falsification as happened on the previous occasion.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 4 2013 14:06 utc | 105

EU, US refuse to even call it a coup, but some people here still call the protesters anti-american.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 14:13 utc | 106

#78
Oh Anonymous compadre, are ya sure Morsi didn't call for Jihad against Syria?

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/49131/bashar-al-assad-mohamed-morsi-calls-for-jihad-against-syria-should-we-care

Are ya sure he didn't incite violence against Copts?
http://m.thehindu.com/news/international/world/egypts-coptic-pope-blasts-morsy-for-violence/article4598377.ece/

Skybox wasn't making his stuff up

Might wanna check your facts amigo.

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 4 2013 14:31 utc | 107

Currently, it seems to me, there is little basis for more than educated guesses and hence much speculations (incl. from myself) concerning the reasons, the relations and partcicularly the future of Egypt.

My shot at it:

Everything happens in a context and there are, as has been experienced just yesterday, priorities that influence or even dictate situations.

Right now the top priority seems to be something like dethroning zusa and making it one - or, if they stubornly refuse, none - of 3 or 4 major centers in a world that powerfully shifts from unipolar to multipolar.

On that path Russia and China (and, albeit somewhat more discrete, South America) work on becoming more powerful and to gain more mass and influence while zusa quite failingly and ever more aggressively tries to somehow keep a unipolar world around zusa in power.
Both major superpowers, China and Russia, with South-America somewhat trailing, have reached a critical level of power, China more on the economic and Russia more on the military side, that allows them to be fearless and actually increasingly chellenging and even dangerous to zusa.
At the same time, another factor, "completeness" is yet to be achieved to really take over from zusa whose completeness is strongly challenged and rapidly falling apart.
What is "completeness"? Power, be it military or economically/financially alone isn't enough. One must also have established networks, considerable independence and power in critical areas like ones currency, and a certain gravity enabling one to lead more by attraction than by creating fear.

The new centers of power still have to go some distance but again, China and in particular Russia have reached and passed critical mass; they can not be simply ignored or retaken anymore. Looking through military glasses, for instance, and doing so not in a quantitative way preferred by zusa but in a qualitative way one has to come to the conclusion that while neither zusa nor Russia could easily risk a direct attack on the other Russias survival position is clearly superior and, pragmatically more important, Russia can, not yet worldwide but in their zones of interest, create de facto denial zones that zusa can't but accept (And looking with untainted glasses zusa actually does although still trying to at least play some tricks).

When looking at events it therefore makes sense to assume that any not insignificant events is taking place with a contextual frame widely defined by:
a) Russia and zusa happening to have the same priorities (at least to a degree) like in Egypt
b) Russia and zusa having different or even opposing priorities

(... continued ...)

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 4 2013 14:46 utc | 108

(... continued ...)

Concerning the current situation in Egypt (at least) 4 major lines of interest are involved (and entangled):

a) Muslim extremists (mb)
In this point both, zusa having burnt themselves and supposedly having learned from ist and Russia having been and being experiencing sensibilities (e.g. Chechnia) happen to have coinciding interests. Quite certainly they both prefer an Egypt not lead (or seriously influenced) by muslim extremists like mb.

b) israel
Maybe on their free will, maybe somehow coerced or maybe even basically being but a golem of israel, zusa anyway almost (?) blindly and unconditionally defends israel and israels interests, sometimes more than their own.
While the last word isn't spoken yet, there is reason to believe that Putins position on israel is somewhere between a certain ignorance and rightout seeing israel as a problem that must be dealt with. It might be a reasonable guess that it's actually the latter but that knowing about the explosiveness of the matter Putin for the time being acts as if he was mildly touchy but quite ignorant-peaceful.
It can therefore be assumed that Russia, other than to welcome a not muslim extremist government, will be rather discrete and reactive (as opposed to pro-active).

c) zusas client states
This factor is more important as it might seem at first sight. After all zusas "friendship" with the regimes on the peninsula is not based on love but rather on their bases, oil, and possibly even more importantly on their *vital* need to keep their $ in the reserve currency position as much as any possible. Russia (and their friends and sphere of influence) being major oil and gas powers themselves have a rather complex position, more or less coming down to "mildly hostile"; it's not high on their short term agenda to change the situation in their favour but it is quite much on their agenda to not accept any further shift favouring zusa.

d) Suez canal
Maybe just a pragmatic issue but one that has historically shown very high importance. It can be reasonably assumed that both, zusa and Russia/China, prefer more than everything else a rational and more or less neutral government in Egypt for that issue alone. While Russia can afford a somewhat cooler position both zusa and China very much need an unproblematic Suez passage and so does Europe.

All in all it seems reasonable to assume that the frame within wich Egypt can freely determine their further path is set rather generously, as long as they do not clearly walk toward one side or the other and stay within certain limits by refraining from a too strong religious force in their government and state.

And coincidentially that is what seems most likely to happen and has already been indicated by the current events.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 4 2013 14:47 utc | 109

Fernando

Why do I need to repeat myself?
Again he didnt even mention the word Jihad in his speech and he hasnt "icnite" violence against christians, did you read your links?
Wasnt it you that defended extremist Le pen in another thread?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 15:05 utc | 110

Amigo, or amiga...Since, you prefer to remain, "anonymous"...I didn't defend an extremist, I defended the right to free speech. He doesn't have to use the word jihad, the idea can be implied. The idea, brings forth the thought, the thought the brings out the deed.
Incitements, provocations and arousal of emotions.

I did read them, it said "green light to fight" all over it.

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 4 2013 15:12 utc | 111

This mess wouldnt be happening had Morsi simply called early elections.

He may have even won those. Though I wouldnt count on it.

Too late now.

I think instead of a presidential system Egypt should have had a parliamentary system instead.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jul 4 2013 15:21 utc | 112

Pragma, beyond excellent posts in 108-9. Its a wonderful geopolitical analysis. Thank you very much.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jul 4 2013 15:25 utc | 113

Fernando

Well thats the issue, another user said he that mursi called for jihad.

No you did not only defend free speech (by the way, you dont support free speech you support keeping her immunity) you also defended her views.

You read what you want to read because thats how prejudice works.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 15:37 utc | 114

@ Anonymous | Jul 4, 2013 8:38:07 AM | 102, welcome to politics! One must also remember 'Religion' is the predecessor of modern politics, and it has not fully run its cycle of being obsolete; so there are bound to be some conflicts or alliances and complications, likewise whatever is best suited at the time and in line with needs to the few.

In all honesty, and correct me if I am wrong, Arabism and Arab unity is a farce (And so is much more in the World) –Mores so with the voices stating “The future belongs to Islam”. That is isolationist, segregation and not global (The world is a big place), and in reality totally absurd.

Once that is realized, the world of Geo-politics loses its smoke screen and we can all move forward; in short, stop fighting a battle that has not true or has no relevance, rather than the things that matter i.e. Over population, Food sources, Toxic pollution etc.

Likewise all will follow, since the only 45 degree angle closing the door if removed it is not longer valid, in turn the playing field is ‘reality’ and not the core friction of anal human clandestine and religious moronic chaos.
Again I will state, it is a ‘War is Economics’, and always has been. Look at Germany, it’s succeeded, even if the Jews have chased that card beyond the life span of all involved -Go back 1000’s of years, the same. We have memories, but refuse to make future memories that are antidotes.

We teach lessons learned, in fact drive them, but we never seem to work it, and simply because of we ‘hate’, it in our nature! Put that in a simplistic sense’ take one street, anywhere in the world, and you have the same, a clear division, the ‘Smiths and Jones’s’ - It is not rocket science…

In fact, looking at our world today, post humanism seems a more sensible out, as we still have flaws, not unto our own in terms of total demise, we don’t look at planet as a whole, yet we are the destruction of all species, we just don’t like to admit that fact, it’s in our nature we are pretty much a virus or parasitical by description as a species, we do want to migrate; another part of our nature, like any virus, after feeding off its host.

Since a man’s values are supposedly but the ones he chooses, as an collective we are organized, thus we don’t have choice, in turn opting for a new ethical paradigm would allow ‘us’ to redefine all aspects of life and independence, if that were feasible, more so accepted -call that catch 22.

Of course, preparations must be made for humanity’s comfortable acclimation to this new “hive mind with ‘freedoms’” and on the aspect of that is removing the ‘chastity of religion and politics’ then and only can we ever move on; but this will lead to our dawn, with the population ‘factor’ thus economically not viable (As a collective) –What a conundrum!

Posted by: kev | Jul 4 2013 16:00 utc | 115

@35 "So it's very likely syria that undid Morsi"

Thanks for this. I don't think people should overlook the fact the Morsi was planning his own foreign war.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 4 2013 16:07 utc | 116

"Power, be it military or economically/financially alone isn't enough. One must also have established networks, considerable independence and power in critical areas like ones currency, and a certain gravity enabling one to lead more by attraction than by creating fear."
As usual Mr Pragma has an interesting analysis.

The problem is that the key difference between Tweedle USA and Tweedle Russia/China is that Russia and China are not in favour of US hegemony and the USA is unprepared to share power with them.

And that, in the final analysis, is a very small difference in a world in which the basic divide is between those with power(the 1% of phrase and fable) and the exploited 99%.

Currently we in the 99% can take comfort in the fact that US totalitarianism is running into robust opposition from its rivals. But the truth is that, in terms of devotion to the criminal mores of Capitalism, they are all as bad as each other. As can be seen by their collective indifference to environmental protection.
In the long term, the story is of class war: the interests of the workers, peasants, the poor, the weak and the elderly (as well as the virtuous and honest) stand opposed to the (neo)liberal imperialist class which dominates not only the United states and its pathetic satraps but China, Russia, Brazil and the rest.
The spectre of communism, no more than an aetherial wraith of hope and the idea of community solidarity, haunts the world today. If it disappears the planet will be quickly follow it.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 4 2013 16:22 utc | 117

@105 Islamist, securlarist, it's all meaningless.

This is what matters: "There is more than an economic crisis. Islamists have only ultraliberal answers to give to the crisis."

Egypt, economically, is Greece time 10,000. We will all watch The United States and the surrounding countries will keep playing musical chairs with Egypt's presidency, we'll all cry how it matters so much that it was president A in power and not president B or no president at all, Islamist this or Secular that, 44% of 27% of 12% of this, or country A is really getting coming out on top here, oh but look at country B their power is waning: but the neo-liberal economics will remain the same.

We're watching the rulers of the world - the United States and Wall Street - try every trick to placate people keep economic "order" and keep people going to work. For a year here. A day there. Mubarak worked until he didn't. The Army worked for a time. Morsi lasted a year. The only real expression of "the people" is the anger on the streets preventing the system from working. As for who was in charge - that was entirely the expression of the neo-liberal model of business-governance trying to find a way to keep the economic flows open for one more trip to the bank.

That's what needs to be overthrown. Nothing else matters at all.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 4 2013 16:42 utc | 118

@guest77 post 118

I agree completely. Even if the Nasserists manage to take power, next to nothing will change about Egypts economic situation. Among other things, the Military has more economic power than the government of egypt does, and the Military's leadership has very solid footing right now even if the government does not.

Although I do think deposing Morsi was a (very slightly) positive step, chances are the worst is yet to come. We could be seeing a dramatic civil war scenario in a few years, partially because of economic instability, but mostly because of economic instability . If the people are not fed, they will not be happy. The economic situation deteriorated even faster under Morsi than under Mubarak.

Even if the Nasserists manage to win the election, its doubtful they would be able to do much of anything. They may even end up being capitalists-in-socialist-clothing like Francois Hollande of France is, which might semi-permanently discredit Nasserism in Egypt.

The secularist/islamist debate is of some importance, but ultimately the fight is over bread, not the quran.

I fail to see a good way out of this for egypt.

Posted by: Massinissa | Jul 4 2013 17:53 utc | 119

Anonymous
Is my little lady upset? Of course I defend free speech, I'll even defend your misused right to exercise it. By unfairly impeaching me. You seem to just wish to shut others down sugar, that does not allow for the exercise of freedom or for the expression of speech. Smells like, tyranny.
If we shut down Marine Le Pen just because we don't like what she say's or thinks. What does that say about us, what does that say about you?
Smells like, more tyranny
By denying that Morsi didn't invite or welcome violence upon Copts or against the secular government in Syria headed by Bashar al Assad, because he didn't "verbally" invoke jihad.. Who I might add you described as making "weird" statements. Hahahaha
Is pure foolishness.
Pure foolishness, because if he, Morsi supports Egyptian citizens to go fight against Syria, then what are they peace corp volunteers?
You imply that the Coptic Pope is lying. C'mon man what have you got against the Pope? He's the Pope for Christs'sake, he ain't gonna lie bro.
Pope's never lie ;)

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 4 2013 18:19 utc | 120

Fernando

You dont seem to read what I just said:

"No you did not only defend free speech (by the way, you dont support free speech you support keeping her immunity) you also defended her views."

Again you dont defend freedom of speech you SUPPORT Le Pen, that is whats making you mad.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 18:33 utc | 121

Anonympus
No sugar, I ain't mad. I'm entertained everytime I read, yes, every time I READ your nonsense. You can change the subject, you can smear me all you want. I've made my point about Le Pen, (representing the right of the nation-state, persecution, free-speech). You've made your point about how intolerant and anal you are about others having views different than your own. I don't mind discussing it with you, but you do give me pause since you seem so angry sugar. Don't be angry, cuz if you do that just means I have power over you. I don't want to control you that would be, I dunno... totalitarian hahaha!!

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 4 2013 19:29 utc | 122

Fernando

Yes you are very mad because you cant approach what I am saying. However you finally admit you support nation-state, ethnically pure states have been tried before if you know basic history, you can check with Germany and see how that went, surely you dont support that regime too? Thats why Le Pen is an extremist which you obviously support.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 4 2013 19:36 utc | 123

anonymous
Sugar, I never stated a word about any ethnically pure anything. You also now put words in my mouth. Not at all what i meant, sorry you misunderstood. I come from an super ethically mixed society. So what your saying is crazy. I am pluri-ethnic, I'm from Latin-America. I've stated my support for free-speech for myself and above all else for others. Including, yourself and Marine Le Pen. An EU critic and euro sckeptic, where she expresses what many others have mentioned socialists and capitalists, about the overwhelming and overreaching unelected super-European über state. Which isn't responsive to local needs.
I pointed out how yes, indeed. I believe she supports the nation-state. As opposed to the EU, which brings few benefits to the people. The nation-state I envision is mostly akin to what we have in Costa Rica or Switzerland both of which are multi-ethnic.

Now you bring up some nonsense about the third Reich, when that is the farthest thing from what I'm referring too? WTF?
I've made my point. Comprende?
You, can keep screaming, "Marine Le Pen is bad".
I think I'm beginning to understand why you remain "anonymous"
Let them eat cake

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 4 2013 20:43 utc | 124

Fernando

Nation-states are defined by their ethnicity! Remember Germany?
In Germany too, they didnt think Hitler was extremist.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 5 2013 8:14 utc | 125

Good article with links to references:
http://moderntokyotimes.com/2013/07/04/egypt-and-the-real-arab-spring-muslim-brotherhood-and-obama-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/

People seem to argue that millions of people in the streets are not stronger than the ballot boxes (no matter how many irregularities have been recorded, also of the police voters having been multiplied in favour of Shafiq: i. e. the second tour should have been between Sabbahi and Morsi), do they also mean that the protesters against the Iraq war who came out by millions in the US and Europe should not have been listened to?
So democracy is, put your vote in a box and watch TV sitting on your sofa for the next 4-5 years? That's NOT the definition of democracy, sorry.

Hitler won an election, although millions of people in Germany knew how dangerous were the Nazis. But they prefered to stick to "laws", as if laws had a divine authority above that of the people.

Posted by: Mina | Jul 5 2013 8:58 utc | 126

@126
It's a small point, Mina, but Hitler never won an election until Emergency Laws allowed the NAZIs to arrest, imprison and disenfranchise socialists and communists.
The March 1933 election was far from fair. It was not really an election at all.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 5 2013 19:55 utc | 127

Mina

Oh and there we have it, muslims=nazis. Classy Mina.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 5 2013 20:03 utc | 128