Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 18, 2013

Who Dictates U.S. Policies On Egypt?

Who is really setting U.S. policies on Egypt?

The NYT has the answer: How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut

The Israelis, whose military had close ties to General Sisi from his former post as head of military intelligence, were supporting the takeover as well. Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.

Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it.

When Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, proposed an amendment halting military aid to Egypt, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter to senators on July 31 opposing it, saying it “could increase instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.” Statements from influential lawmakers echoed the letter, and the Senate defeated the measure, 86 to 13, later that day.

Posted by b on August 18, 2013 at 8:18 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page | next page »

This is definitely absolute cobblers, but it picks up the earlier disinfo from al-Masry al-Youm about Russia:

Israel stays clear of Egyptian crisis, fearing
Russia’s return to a second border after Syria

DEBKAfile, Aug 19 2013

Saudi Arabia and the UAE, not Israel, are lobbying the West for support of the Egyptian military. Their campaign is orchestrated by Prince Bandar, not an anonymous senior Israeli official as claimed by the NYT. Bandar is wielding the Russian threat as his most potent weapon for pulling Washington and Brussels behind Sisi and away from recriminations for his deadly crackdown on the MB. The veteran Saudi intelligence maven’s is blunt. Failing a radical Western about-turn in favor of the Egyptian military, Cairo will turn to Moscow. In no time, Russian arms and military experts will again be swarming over Egypt, 41 years after they were thrown out by Sadat in 1972. Implied in Bandar’s message is the availability of Saudi financing for Egyptian arms purchases from Moscow. Therefore, if Obama yields to pressure and cuts off military aid to post-coup Cairo, the US strategic partnership with Egypt may go by the board. It is not clear to what extent Putin is an active party in the Saudi drive on behalf of the Egyptian military ruler. On Jul 31, during his four-hour meeting with Bandar, he listened to a Saudi proposition for the two countries to set up an economic-military-diplomatic partnership as payment for Russian backing for Cairo. Last Friday Aug 16, Putin convened his elite military and intelligence chiefs for an extraordinary meeting in the Kremlin to discuss the Saudi proposition. No decisions were reported, only a suggestive quote from Putin saying that the session was called to “discuss the situation in Egypt and take the necessary steps to the put Russian military facilities at the Egyptian military disposal.” He added that “Russia will arrange for joint military exercises with the Egyptian army.” Both notions were left dangling without elaboration, a lure without a commitment.... (more)

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 19 2013 10:05 utc | 101

EU cancel its meeting on Egypt. Apparently they await memo from Israel and the US.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 19 2013 10:08 utc | 102

The tragedy for Egyptians is that, whoever comes to power, be it the army or the Ikhwan are both there to serve the interest of the US.

The MB's short experiment with power proved very useful for the Israelis..The Israelis loved Mursi just as they love the Army..The Egyptian public be damned!!!

The US is supporting all this for the benefit of a racist apartheid regime occupying Palestine..Interesting times :)

Posted by: Zico | Aug 19 2013 10:11 utc | 103

90) yeah that article is fun - how can lobbying be discreet when a long article has been written on it in the New York Times?

So what is it now - what does Israel want - a destabilizing Brotherhood, Al Qeida win in Syria and a stabilizing army win in Egypt against that same Brotherhood / Al Qeida?

Something has got to give.

By the way, I find it surprising the Egyptian army has not been able to find a compromise with the Muslim Brotherhood - they have known and dealt with each other intimately for a long time - and presumably a compromise would have been in everybody's interest as what is happening now cannot be good for the generals (they are business people, remember?)

The only explanation I can find - some people were bribed.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 10:11 utc | 104

Questioning those that support the military coup and subsequent murders is not the same as "suporting the mb", brian

Both the military and the mb are bad for the mythical "99%".

The propagandists want us all to believe that a completely manufactured military/mb dichotomy is all there is, and all that ever could be, in a predominantely muslim, or arab, nation

Posted by: hmm | Aug 19 2013 10:13 utc | 105

Actually the daily crack down death rates in Egypt resemble very closely the numbers reported from Syria (including killed soldiers, police). Given a year they will be above those numbers.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 10:27 utc | 106

So this is civil war now.

Suspected militants have ambushed two minibuses carrying off-duty policemen in Egypt's northern Sinai Peninsula, killing 25 of them execution-style and wounding two, security officials said.

The killings, which took place near the border town of Rafah, compound Egypt's woes a day after police fired tear gas to free a prison guard from rioting detainees, killing at least 36.

The deaths of the 36 detainees and the 25 policemen take to nearly 1,000 the number of people killed in Egypt since Wednesday's simultaneous assaults on two sit-in protest camps by supporters of ousted Islamist president Mohammed Morsi.

In the attack in Sinai, the militants forced the two vehicles to stop, ordered the policemen out and forced them to lie on the ground before they shot them, the officials said. The policemen were in civilian clothes, the officials added.

The deaths on Sunday of the prisoners, who were captured during clashes in the past couple of days around Cairo's central Ramses Square, came as military chief General Abdel-Fatah el-Sissi vowed that the military would stand firm in the face of the rising violence but also called for the inclusion of Islamists in the post-Morsi political process.

There was initial confusion over how the Sinai ambush had happened, and the officials at first said the policemen were killed when the militants fired rocket-propelled grenades at the two minibuses carrying the men. Such confusion over details in the immediate aftermath of attacks is common. Egyptian state television also reported that the men were killed execution-style.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 10:37 utc | 107

Abstract
Religious identity can unite communities but rarely nations, let alone regions. The limits of ‘Political Islam’ as a nation building and developmental force in the Middle East cannot be assessed theoretically, or through an appeal to the finest elements of Islamic culture and civilisation. The reason for this is that the phenomenon is a particular historical one. The Saudi current of Wahhabism and the broader political movement represented by the Muslim Brotherhood dominate Political Islam in the Middle East, as also the ‘revolution’ in Syria. Yet Wahhabism is tightly linked to a semi-feudal network of Gulf monarchies, deeply undemocratic and socially backward but with almost limitless oil wealth. For its part, the Muslim Brotherhood, a wider movement but increasingly dependent on Wahhabi finance, has a history of jealous competition with secular nationalism. From failures in this competition and reinforced by its Wahhabi links, the Brotherhood has developed increased reliance on Salafi-sectarian views. Yet while Islam is extremely popular in the region, Salafi-sectarianism is not.

To make matters worse, the sectarian currents have been repeatedly enlisted by foreign powers to divide and weaken the peoples of the region. The conflict in Syria is just the latest example of this. So the central question of this paper is: ‘What does the Syrian conflict tell us about the limits of Political Islam in the Middle East?’ It is argued that strong, unified states are necessary to build stable nations, while fostering human development. Further, autonomous regional stability and solidarity are necessary to successfully resist intervention and destabilisation by outside powers. Yet the history of big power–Islamist collaboration serves to emphasise Political Islam’s limits in state building and human development. By way of contrast, pluralist integration in Latin America is showing relative success in managing external destabilisation and in fostering a renewal of ‘south-south’ cooperation. This comparison with the fragmented Arab and Muslim states bolsters the argument that secular integration is needed for a strong and independent region.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/wahhabis-the-brotherhood-and-the-empire-syria-and-the-limits-of-political-islam-/10151627139091234

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/wahhabis-the-brotherhood-and-the-empire-syria-and-the-limits-of-political-islam-/10151627132726234

Posted by: brian | Aug 19 2013 10:57 utc | 108

and if u missed it:
welcome to 4th generation warfare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a12X3Ko5vlc

Posted by: brian | Aug 19 2013 10:59 utc | 109

Now the regime release Mubarak free on pending charges. Another proof how wrong the coup-supporters are about Egypt.

http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/19/319472/egypt-court-orders-mubarak-release/

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 19 2013 12:17 utc | 110

People who have the "choice" between only 2 parties in their elections are giving moral lessons to the rest of the world? What are the options for the Egyptian modernists, please? Do Snowden and Assange have many option, beyond RT and Russia?

Posted by: Mina | Aug 19 2013 12:40 utc | 111

111) There are small choices, like not taking part in incitement, insisting on rationality, insisting on human rights for all, not taking part in violence, trying to deescalate conflicts, accepting that you cannot change the past and look to the future, not dehumanizing the other, sympathizing with grief of all sides... everyday life made hard or easy for people to live.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 12:53 utc | 112

a good move by the egyptians:

'In a press conference Sunday, Awad told parliamentary correspondents that the committee will finish its work Monday, with the new draft constitution expected to be announced Wednesday. The new constitution will form the bedrock of Egypt's new post-30 June revolution's political roadmap, aimed at turning the country into a fully democratic state under civilian rule.
';
...
“The 2012 constitution was drafted under the former regime of the Muslim Brotherhood to grant Islamists an upper hand and a final say in Egypt's political future, and this must be changed now," a committee source told Ahram Online on condition of anonymity. He added that "When the people revolted 30 June, their main goals were not confined to removing Mohamed Morsi from power, but also changing the fundamental pillars of the religious tyranny the Muslim Brotherhood regime tried its best to impose on Egypt."

Within this context, the source revealed that members of the committee reached consensus that the new constitution must impose a ban on political parties based on religious foundations.

This would mark a return back to Article 5 of 2007's constitutional amendments introduced by the regime of ousted president Hosni Mubarak. It stated that, "It is not permitted to pursue any political activity or establish any political parties within any religious frame of reference (marja’iyya) or on any religious basis or on the basis of gender or origin."

The committee source said, "The return to the 2007 constitution's Article 5 was necessary after we saw that dozens of political parties were clearly formed on religious foundations and that their main objective was to turn Egypt into a religious state."

The source explained that "the anticipated ban gained momentum after the committee received requests and proposals from more than 400 political, economic and social institutions, pressing hard for the necessity of safeguarding Egypt against Islamist factions trying to change the civil nature of the country into a religious oligarchy."
etc
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/79368/Egypt/Politics-/Technical-committee-to-propose-radical-changes-to-.aspx

Posted by: brian | Aug 19 2013 13:21 utc | 113

Questioning those that support the military coup and subsequent murders is not the same as "suporting the mb", brian

Both the military and the mb are bad for the mythical "99%".

The propagandists want us all to believe that a completely manufactured military/mb dichotomy is all there is, and all that ever could be, in a predominantely muslim, or arab, nation

Posted by: hmm | Aug 19, 2013 6:13:55 AM | 105

newsflash hmm...its the very same

Posted by: brian | Aug 19 2013 13:22 utc | 114

Who Dictates U.S. Policies On Egypt?
The answer is rather complex:
1. The Saudis have been sending Salafi fighters and funding activities all over the region, after realizing that their US allies have no problem throwing away their Egyptian counterpart.
2. The Russians are deep in Syria, vetoing any intervention, and cannot wait to come back to Egypt, which they used to own back in the good old days of the cold war.
3. The Iranians are helping out the Muslim Bros liberal and highly effective governing bodies in Egypt and Gaza
4. The Quatrains and Gulf friends are trying to counter balance Iranian interventionism all over the region in fear they will be next.
5. The Israelis fear guerrilla/non-state-actors armed with long-range missiles on all fronts: from Lebanon to Syria, through Gaza an Sinai.
6. The US cannot afford to lose the Suez route, and realize now that the vacuum created after the withdrawal from Iraq has made them lose their holding in this oil rich area, just as Warren Buffet’s partners warn that the world oil reserves are running down faster than we think, which is fatal for our indebted economy…
So, one must wonder - why point out only the Israelis?

Posted by: Biasnotme | Aug 19 2013 15:16 utc | 115

@115 "2. The Russians are deep in Syria, vetoing any intervention"

It's known as Justice, look it up, hasbarat.

"5. The Israelis fear guerrilla/non-state-actors armed with long-range missiles on all fronts: from Lebanon to Syria, through Gaza an Sinai."

As well they should.

"6. The US cannot afford to lose the Suez route, and realize now that the vacuum created after the withdrawal from Iraq has made them lose their holding in this oil"

Oh, boo hoo, the poor 'Murricans, whatever shall they do!

Posted by: ruralito | Aug 19 2013 15:51 utc | 116

Who Dictates U.S. Policies On Egypt?

The simple answer is: Nobody.

Certainly not Obama who these days seems very rattled. He has lost his cool.

Different factions have different aims and varied ideas about how to achieve them. They more or less all want a stable, subservient, Egypt, and to ‘protect’ Israel. There the consensus stops. (There may be some who want to see Egypt destroyed by civil war, but these are I think in a minority.)

The US is not creating events (much) but playing catch-up and trying to interpret. One can imagine the frantic phone calls concerning the Defense Industry, other biz. interests, oil, Escalation, unrest in the whole region, what about Syria, Israel, etc.

The US does not know on which side its bread will be best buttered.

And even it it did, what would / could it do? Send in troops, bomb? I don’t think so - After Afgh. and Iraq. The question of the US military aid is symbolic, really it is the US tax payer shunting money to the US Defense Industry. Others would no doubt be willing to step up and pay.

Mubarak suited the US just fine and the first set of protests etc. (Egypt and Tunisia) were a nasty surprise.

In Egypt, the Army is not just those who have firepower they can deploy. They are part and parcel of the economy, the Elite’s domination of the country (incl. media), of the Gvmt., of it’s history.

Going off into a fancy tangent, the Egypt story may be very uncomfortable for US leaders, as it represents a kind of mirror for the US.

Will the US elites use the Army at home to repress? The repression now is respectably dressed up with violent Police, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, anti-terror laws, TSA, border guards, NSA surveillance, etc. But further on down the line?

Will the US stand up or not for some elected leader (e.g. Morsi, Obama)? Or seemingly stop defending human rights of minorities (women, freedom of religion, etc. even if it is fake there is a point of rupture...) If not, that is a wildly serious step, and a HUGE image problem, slashing apart the facade of ‘TV democracy’, and then who knows what might happen.

Maybe it all feels like a bit close to home. Disquieting. Confusing.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 19 2013 15:52 utc | 117

...mebbe have to buy their oil on the free market which they trumpet from every citadel.

Posted by: ruralito | Aug 19 2013 15:55 utc | 118

Biasnotme

Because US are influenced/driven by Israel interests first and foremost when it comes to the Middle-East, and especially on Egypt.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 19 2013 15:55 utc | 119

115) Because they are accepted as a lobbying group in the US (I am taking the point of view of the PR person who leaked this to the New York Times)?

Because it is ok if Obama's policy is influenced by the Israel lobby but would not be ok if it was influenced by the Saudi Lobby or by the Egyptian army?

Because it is politically correct if he is ignoring human rights violations for the safety of Israel but that would not be accepted for the safety of Saudi Arabia?

Because discussing Israel is the perfect diversion from this 2009 dream

Two stories this morning highlight what I think is a key question about President Obama’s speech tomorrow in Cairo. The first is the news that, “under pressure from the United States, the Secretariat-General of the lower house of the Egyptian Parliament invited ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc to attend Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo on Thursday.” The delegation will include Dr. Saad Al Katatni, leader of the bloc, who said that the invitation “came as a compromise solution between the American administration and the Egyptian government, considering that there is increasing pressure on the administration from the American press on the necessity of meeting with all members of opposition and other influential forces.” Though Katatni explicitly denied it, Al-Arabiya’s reporter Mustafa Sulaiman speculated that Brotherhood members may also be invited to a special meeting that Obama will hold with writers, politicians and members of Egyptian civil society. ... Marc Lynch notes the president’s answer to a question from NPR on Hamas: The problem has been that there has been a preference oftentimes on the part of these organizations to use violence and not take responsibility for governance as a means of winning propaganda wars or advancing their organizational aims. At some point though, they may make a transition. There are examples of, in the past, organizations that have successfully transitioned from violent organizations to ones that recognize that they can achieve their aims more effectively through political means. And I hope that occurs. Lynch: It will be very interesting to see if this comment signals a real shift in policy. It is a very good sign that eleven Muslim Brotherhood Parliamentarians have been invited to attend the Cairo speech, and Mohammad Saad Katatni, head of the MB Parliamentary bloc, has confirmed that they will attend. The Brotherhood has officially been publicly skeptical about Obama’s visit and his speech, but they declined to participate in the anti-Obama protest organized by the once relevant Kefaya movement, and some of its members have signaled openness to hearing what he has to say and — more importantly — whether those words translate into deeds. Exactly the kind of conversation-starter for which so many have been looking.

and this is not really mentioned either in the New York Times article

US Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham - who visited Cairo Tuesday to take part in mediation efforts between Egypt's rival political camps - called for the release of Brotherhood figures from prisons.

A group of foreign envoys, including assistant secretary of state William Burns, the assistance to the EU envoy Bernadino Leon, and the foreign ministers of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates Khalid Al-Attiyah and Abdullah bin Zayed, reportedly visited El-Shater in prison on Sunday.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 16:20 utc | 120

+ 120 This is the New York Times description of the senators' visit

Heightened Tensions

Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham arrived in Cairo amid increasing tensions. They went first to see Ambassador Anne W. Patterson. “You could see it on her face, that nobody’s listening,” Mr. Graham said. He said administration officials asked them to press for the release of the two Islamists and to push the Brotherhood to pull people off the street.

When the senators asked government officials to release the Islamist leaders, one woman on the Egyptian side stormed out. The senators warned that the United States would ultimately cut off aid if the military did not set elections and amend the Constitution.

Mr. Graham recalled arguing with General Sisi. “If Morsi had to stand for re-election anytime soon, he’d lose badly,” the senator remembered saying. “Do you agree?”

“Oh, absolutely,” the general answered.

“Then what you’re doing now is making him a martyr,” Mr. Graham said. “It’s no longer about how badly they ruled the country and how they marginalized the democratic institutions. It’s now about you.”

The meeting with the prime minister was even tenser. As they walked out, Mr. Graham said, he told Mr. McCain, “If this guy’s voice is indicative of the attitude, there’s no pulling out of this thing.”

When Egyptian state news media leaked reports of an imminent government statement that diplomacy had failed, the diplomats were stunned, and scrambled to hold it off.

The next day, Mr. León, the European envoy, assured the Islamists that although the prisoner release had fallen through, at least the Egyptians had agreed to pull back the statement, Brotherhood leaders said.

A half-hour later, it was issued nonetheless. “The phase of diplomatic efforts has ended,” it declared, calling the sit-ins “nonpeaceful” and obliquely blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for any coming violence.

The Americans and Europeans were furious, feeling deceived and manipulated. “They were used to justify the violence,” Mr. Darrag said in an interview. “They were just brought in so that the coup government could claim that the negotiations failed, and, in fact, there were no negotiations.”

Now, did they talk to the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in prison or didn't they?

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 16:27 utc | 121

The Iranians are helping out the Muslim Bros liberal and highly effective governing bodies in Egypt and Gaza... Posted by: Biasnotme | Aug 19, 2013 11:16:57 AM | 115
There are no "Muslim Bros liberal and highly effective governing bodies in Egypt" any more, except perhaps at the local or neighbourhood level, and they will all get crucified on the dilemma of whether to resist Sisi & Co or not. As for Hamas, Iran may be giving them money currently, or it may not; Hamas itself is split between an Ismail Haniyeh ( physically Gazan) faction and a Khaled Meshaal (international wheeler-dealer) faction. If I were Iran, as I've said before, I would forget this supra-sectarian collaboration mirage, because however Iran may feel about the Ikhwan, the Ikhwan will remain totally intolerant of Shi'ism on what it considers to be its turf.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 19 2013 16:51 utc | 122

Graham trying to explain Sissi that he understands Egypt better than him is a piece of anthology.

Here is the view of a realist which I happen to agree with (birds' names are going to rain)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-190813.html

Posted by: Mina | Aug 19 2013 17:27 utc | 123

Who Dictates U.S. Policies On Egypt?
The answer is rather complex:
1. The Saudis have been sending Salafi fighters and funding activities all over the region, after realizing that their US allies have no problem throwing away their Egyptian counterpart.
2. The Russians are deep in Syria, vetoing any intervention, and cannot wait to come back to Egypt, which they used to own back in the good old days of the cold war.
3. The Iranians are helping out the Muslim Bros liberal and highly effective governing bodies in Egypt and Gaza
4. The Quatrains and Gulf friends are trying to counter balance Iranian interventionism all over the region in fear they will be next.
5. The Israelis fear guerrilla/non-state-actors armed with long-range missiles on all fronts: from Lebanon to Syria, through Gaza an Sinai.
6. The US cannot afford to lose the Suez route, and realize now that the vacuum created after the withdrawal from Iraq has made them lose their holding in this oil rich area, just as Warren Buffet’s partners warn that the world oil reserves are running down faster than we think, which is fatal for our indebted economy…
So why point out only Israel rather than have an in-depth analysis?

Posted by: Truthseeker101 | Aug 19 2013 17:45 utc | 124

At least he isn't doing his usual demographic durge, Mina. But I think he's wrong about the Saudis have missiles of their very own (as opposed to on US bases) pointed at Iran. The story that started that meme was a very sensationalistic but not very scientific one: link.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 19 2013 17:48 utc | 125

When considering "Who Dictates U.S. Policies On Egypt?" why do we insist upon placing the blame outside our own borders? How is Israel able dictate our policy as it applies to the middle east? Of course, the answer lies within our own boundries. What is the incentive for our politicians blind subservience to the AIPAC agenda? Is it not an effort to garner the "jewish vote", and the jewish campaign funds that go hand in hand with unwaveribng support of all thiungs Israel? Could AIPAC and the various Jewish lobby groups wield such power if not for the support of our domestic Jewish community? Frankly, I'm tired of mincing words when criticising the power Israel wields over Washington DC. If it were not for the support of american jews, AIPAC wouldn't last five minutes. Until a majority of the domestic jewish community speaks out against the crimes of Israel, the influence of AIPAC, and the obscene subservience our politicians pay to the AIPAC/Israeli agenda, we are stuck with the status quo in our dealings and policies in the Middle East. It is time the Jewish community used thier vote to protect the security of THE UNITED STATES, not the security of Israel. As things stand now, our suopport of Israel is seriously damaging our security, and our world standing. If Israel is so important to our Jewish citizens, than perhaps they should live where their alliances lie. I'm sick of this shit. It ain't just "the zionists" that are bribing our Representatives into disastrous middle eastern policies. Lets stop mincing words.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 19 2013 18:09 utc | 126

Well, I guess the US is negotiating with Iran in earnest, so of course Netanyahu is not dictating US foreign policies, and of course Netanyahu is not Israel.

1)

In declassified document, CIA acknowledges role in '53 Iran coup

2)

Iran may be limiting sensitive nuclear stockpile: diplomats

So Egypt might be the US deal to cool down Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 18:18 utc | 127

In a press conference Sunday, Awad told parliamentary correspondents that the committee will finish its work Monday, with the new draft constitution expected to be announced Wednesday. The new constitution will form the bedrock of Egypt's new post-30 June revolution's political roadmap, aimed at turning the country into a fully democratic state under civilian rule.

“The 2012 constitution was drafted under the former regime of the Muslim Brotherhood to grant Islamists an upper hand and a final say in Egypt's political future, and this must be changed now," a committee source told Ahram Online on condition of anonymity. He added that "When the people revolted 30 June, their main goals were not confined to removing Mohamed Morsi from power, but also changing the fundamental pillars of the religious tyranny the Muslim Brotherhood regime tried its best to impose on Egypt."

Within this context, the source revealed that members of the committee reached consensus that the new constitution must impose a ban on political parties based on religious foundations.

This would mark a return back to Article 5 of 2007's constitutional amendments introduced by the regime of ousted president Hosni Mubarak. It stated that, "It is not permitted to pursue any political activity or establish any political parties within any religious frame of reference (marja’iyya) or on any religious basis or on the basis of gender or origin."
...The source explained that "the anticipated ban gained momentum after the committee received requests and proposals from more than 400 political, economic and social institutions, pressing hard for the necessity of safeguarding Egypt against Islamist factions trying to change the civil nature of the country into a religious oligarchy."

Great news, indeed!
Unanimity between the "secularists" who are against religious parties and the wahhabists who are against all political parties.

Once again the tactic of banning opposition candidates- in Iraq, former baathists, in Haiti supporters of Aristide, in Libya former Ghaddifi partisans- is called a constitutional reform.
Like the killing of 38 prisoners yesterday, (and they are almost certainly only a few of those who have been detained, then murdered in the past week) the imperialist playbook unfolds in all its foul familiarity.

This article at Counterpunch is a useful antidote to the Pinochet style apologetics imperialism's clerisy is spewing up:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/19/egypt-during-the-reign-of-the-lunatics/

Posted by: bevin | Aug 19 2013 18:20 utc | 128

I ought to add, to 128, that the first four paragraphs, as I trust their quality indicates, were excerpted from one of "Brian's" Sisi Fan Club contributions.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 19 2013 18:23 utc | 129

The current events are the perfect demonstration that the "war on terror" led by Bush Obama Blair Cameron the EU etc is an absolute failure. Secret prisons, Guantanamo, PRISM spying on anyone who calls regularly family of friends in a Muslim country, scanning all emails of the same people (including specialists in universities!), are of no use. Crushing the countries were women had a little bit more freedom, such as Iraq and Syria, cannot produce good results either. Helping the Zionists in getting all the Christians out of the Middle East in order to achieve their dream of sectarian entities will only bring endless religious wars. Short-sight policies bring them to complete moral and economic bankruptcy. The king is naked, more than ever.

Posted by: Mina | Aug 19 2013 18:25 utc | 130

What with all the posts by brian, the endless citations, the duplicate posts, and the supposed voice-of-reason Mina? looks to me like someone 9another voice-of-reason?) sent off directives to whitewash obvious massacres as something other=rhan-what-it-a[ppears? provocateurs shooting? seems taken for a playbook we've seen from the IDF.

Something is wrong. It's obvious the situation in Egypt is complex, but massacres are not the way to make things any less complex.

It's interesting that when something major happens, like this calamity in Egypt, clearly precipitated/aided and supported by Israel - in an axis with the most reactionary country in the world - Saudi Arabia - that long time posters, people of reason (which I thought brian was ) come out as shills for the Empire. Could it be the same brian? anything is possible, of course, but if he is, surely he is not the only one.

I hope right thinking people take note and don't get drawn into this play.

Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 19 2013 18:25 utc | 131

Re #126: This is the best analysis of US Judaism I've ever seen. It's from a book by Jacob Neusner. Neusner argues that US Judaism is not classical 'Judaism' at all, but something new which he calls 'the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption.' I think that ‘the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption’ is deliberately modeled on ‘the Christianity of Crucifixion and Resurrection,’ with the three days between Good Friday and Easter Sunday replaced by the three years between 1945 and 1948. The Holocaust and Redemption commemorations in the Israeli official calendar fall in April/May, like Good Friday and Easter. Holocaust Remembrance Day is followed a week later by Memorial Day for Israel soldiers, and the day after that is Independence Day. All this clearly makes me a ‘Holocaust relativist.’

Is the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption a religion? Of course it is, because it has the power to turn “being Jewish” into a mode of transcendent and mythic being. What that means is that things are not what they seem, and “we” are more than what “we” appear to be. Specifically, “we” were there in Auschwitz, which stands for all of the centers for the murder of Jews, and “we” share, too, in the everyday life in that faraway place in which we do not live but should, the State of Israel. So the Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption turns things into something other than what they seem, teaches lessons that change the everyday into the remarkable. The Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption tells me that the everyday, the here and now of home and family, ends not in a new Eden but in a cloud of poisonous gas, that salvation lives today, if I will it, but not here and not now. And it teaches me not to trouble to sanctify, but also not to trust, the present circumstance. A mark of importance of this other Judaism is that it has the capacity to draw more people into public activity than the synagogue and its Judaism. Most of the organized and collective life of the Jews as an ethnic group appeals to the myth and symbols of this Judaism of Holocaust and Redemption. That is why it is important.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 19 2013 18:31 utc | 132

They haven't banned the opposition, Bevin, they have said repeatedly in the last 3 days that there is room for everybody who does not endorse violence, including the currents within the MB who have not called for violence.

Posted by: Mina | Aug 19 2013 18:32 utc | 133

Also I hope b comes to the rescue and does some fall cleaning (though it is still summer...). Something and somebodies are not what they appear to be. From years on the Israel/palestine circuit I recognize an MO when i see one - hasbara by any other name is still that - hasbara. It may look confusing but there are some tell-tale signs, including multitudes of ready-for-prime-time links, so generously supplied, repetitions of posts at near-verbatum sometimes, ignoring responses by others on the issues and the seeming appearance of a tag-team (check out the interplay with Mina - point/counterpoint - soliciting reaction).

real people with real opinions - that is not how they speak, whether or not they have a dog in the fight. The poster brian does have a dog, and he does step into the arena to fight, but his is a mask meant to conceal that the dog may be a coyote. Or a zebra. or just another brown nose bear.

Peoples beware!

Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 19 2013 18:35 utc | 134

Posts 115 and 124 are identical. two different screen names, same message - why blame israel?

So who is distributing the talking Points and to whom? and why are they targeting MOA? looks kind of like what giyus used to do (before people wised up to its tactics).

b, I thought there are rules against sockpuppetry....how about eliminating both posts plus look a bit into brian's repetitions?

Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 19 2013 18:46 utc | 135

135) I noticed, it is funny actually, but this time the sock puppets are a bit confused, they don't seem to know what to argue really.
Fact is the New York Times outed the Israel Lobby in not one but two articles.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19 2013 19:00 utc | 136

Massacre? Wach the Egyptian channels for the people who have been tortured with knives by Islamists during the sit-ins, the 25 soldiers killed today after having been kidnapped and handcuffed.
I am pretty sure on Twitter the pro MB crowd is screaming "the army did it, the army is burning the churches, the army is attacking the police stations". That's the way it worked for Syria, and they are totally deprived of any imagination.

Posted by: Mina | Aug 19 2013 19:13 utc | 137

The masscares past weeks caused one of the highest death rate compared with similar incidents, in decades. Sissi, or is it Sissy, must be so proud having that record.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 19 2013 19:34 utc | 138

I think Merlin (#131, #134) is exaggerating. Sock puppets is one thing, and easily detected, bernhard just has to look for different nicknames coming from the same IP, and sometimes he does this and bans people for it. But the suggestion that brian (or me?) & mina constitute a 'tag team', following a shared, pre-planned script while appearing to be coming from completely different points of the compass, is bizarre. The fact is, some people regard the army as a lesser evil than the MBs, and some the other way about. There seem to be pretty near equal numbers of each, actually. That's natural.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 19 2013 19:34 utc | 139

The Sinai massacre is very similar to the al-Bayda massacre in Libya on February 22, 2011 that triggered the NATO war on Libya.

The FIDH / Amnesty International / HRW propaganda campaign on February 23, 2011 claiming "Gaddafi had killed 130 of his own soldiers for refusing to shoot at protesters" was the cause of the February 26 UNSC resolution 1970 that put an embargo on Libya and confiscated 100 billion of assets.

Video of the al-Bayda massacre was used as evidence. The truth is the 23 Libyan soldiers were murdered by Islamists.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Aug 19 2013 20:20 utc | 140

Merlin2, Somebody

I agree, I guess the best way is simply to ignore these users, then they will stop coming here with spamming hasbara.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 19 2013 20:43 utc | 141

#96 Rowan you are being to hard on Sufi. I like the fantasy images -- one could design some electronic game around it. Putin wearing a cross, leading Christian believers made up of Slavs, Serbs, Greeks and Cypriots into battle against a coalition of pagans and heretics made up of atheists, Muslims and a multicultural mix led by Obama.

Posted by: ToivoS | Aug 19 2013 23:12 utc | 142

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 18, 2013 7:43:25 PM | 81

'debs is dead' is dead

Posted by: brian | Aug 19 2013 23:22 utc | 143

The masscares past weeks caused one of the highest death rate compared with similar incidents, in decades. Sissi, or is it Sissy, must be so proud having that record.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 19, 2013 3:34:33 PM | 138

anonymouse the useful idiot


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-08/muslim-brotherhood-best-straight-youtube-actors-money-can-buy

http://www.sott.net/article/263731-Manufacturing-civil-war-in-Egypt-Mystery-snipers-massacre-Morsi-supporters


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/2013/07/09/Al-Jazeera-employees-in-Egypt-quit-over-editorial-line-.html


Muslim Brotherhood activists recruited Syrians and Palestinians to shoot at anti-Morsi protestors
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is being investigated for recruiting Palestinian and Syrian fighters to fire shotguns at anti-Morsi protestors
by The Commentator on 7 July 2013 11:42
While details are yet to become clear, various examples were noted by the Public Prosecution, including the case of Mohamed Hassan al-Berdkany, a Syrian who was recruited to fire at protestors from the Qasr al-Nil Bridge, just a few hundreds metres away from Tahrir Square in Cairo.
Berdkany said he had fled the fighting in Syria and had come with his family to Cairo, wherein he met a young Syrian man named Ahmed al-Soury who was responsible for gathering Syrians to take part in the protests the Muslim Brotherhood was organising at Nahdet Misr Square.
Berdkany revealed that he used to meet with members of the Brotherhood in an apartment in 6th October City. There, he would meet with a local leader of the Syrian community who took him to another apartment where a number of young members of the Brotherhood were staying.
The Brotherhood members asked him to join them in their protests in return for 500 Egyptian Pounds (£47/$71) for each protest he would take part in.
Berdkany also stated that the head of the Palestinian community who paid Palestinians to protest for the Brotherhood is named Bassel al-Feroun. Their meetings also took place in an apartment in 6th October City and each participant was handed a shotgun and paid to go join the Brotherhood protests in Nahdet Misr Square, he said.
The prosecution has asked intelligence, national security, and criminal investigation authorities to conduct their own investigations to determine the movements of Berdkany and to uncover the identities of the suspects involved in the case.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3924/muslim_brotherhood_activists_recruited_syrians_and_palestinians_to_shoot_at_anti_morsi_protestors#.Udzs4hpcSA4.facebook

Posted by: brian | Aug 19 2013 23:41 utc | 144

The World Socialist Web Site has a good summary of this
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/19/egyp-a19.html
It ends "... Leslie Gelb, a former assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration and onetime head of the US Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a similar August 17 column for the Daily Beast entitled “It’s Time to Hold Our Nose and Back Egypt’s Military.”
“[T]hough it’s not nice to say,” Gelb writes, “the [Egyptian] military is doing what a lot of governments around the world would under the same conditions.”

So it is really unfair to call the supporters of General Pinochet/Sisi anything but mainstream. They are on the same side
as Israel, the US government, Saudi Arabia etc. I believe that even the Bahraini Royals have weighed in on Sisi's side.
And against those daring to defy their masters, who, and let nobody doubt this, will restore full democracy just as soon
as they have killed, imprisoned, exiled or gagged anyone daring to challenge the right of the Egyptian kleptocracy
to practice robbery with violence, in the manner to which they are accustomed.

Brian tells us that the Brotherhood have hired Palestinians to shoot at policemen. No doubt they do so from the backs of
hobgoblins and dragons.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 20 2013 0:01 utc | 145

"The brotherhood was crushed initially by Nasser, why? Because they opposed him and tried to have him killed.
Social democrats don't do those things."

The current Premier of Egypt-aka General Sisi's figleaf-is a member of Egypt's Social Democratic party.

Reviewing earlier comments it is shocking how many posting here regard "educational achievement" as a
qualification for electors (the old literacy test from Mississippi. And in one case, ozawa I think,
tells us that what is important is not popular government but "good government."

By the way, b, this thread is spread way over the monitor of my computer, making the comments very
difficult to read. Which is a great pity.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 20 2013 0:15 utc | 146

Petri Krohn,

Yes, but the situation is dramatically different in Egypt. For one thing, the reputation of NATO's desire to bring freedom and democracy to Arab countries through radical Islam has got an image problem. For another, those who don't care for NATO so much are much more prepared for what NATO might try to pull. Finally, Egypt has a number of options that Libya didn't have, such as appealing to the Saudis and Russians, or holding a quick election.

Posted by: Ozawa | Aug 20 2013 0:22 utc | 147

According to RT, the U.S. are suspending their military aid to Egypt:

http://rt.com/news/obama-suspend-aid-egypt-695/

Posted by: gregg | Aug 20 2013 0:38 utc | 148

I note Brian posts a link to "The Commentator".....here is an excerpt about what they are about....straight from the horse's mouth:

"What We Believe"

"The West has a hell of a fight on its hands. Not just from the outside, but from the inside too. Our economics are in the tank after being leeched upon and abused by socialists and corporatists alike. Budgets are bloated, taxes are too high, existential threats to our interests at home and abroad have rarely ever been more concerning. We seek to shed light on these core 'civilisational' issues."

"We argue that now is not the time for high taxes, it's not the time to bow before tyrants, dictators or terrorists, and it's not the time to abandon our only true ally in the Middle East: Israel."

It kinda amuses me when people cite "sources" that are so obviously biased and agenda driven. If you're going to accuse you're readers of being ignorant jackasses by offering such nonsense, it might be wise to do so without braying.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 20 2013 1:34 utc | 149

I have to admit that the general's release of Mubarak was like being hit with a bucket of ice cold water. I didn't think they'd try to go that far.

The release and the other more serious moves back towards Mubarakism will have one certain effect: it will make certain things clear regarding the position of the Tamarod. They have no choice now but to come out against the army, though certainly not for the Muslim Brotherhood.

It's a cliche, I know, but I can't think of anything better right now: I do think the reports of the death of the Egyptian revolution have been greatly exaggerated.

I don't think the Tamarod have been secret counter-revolutionaries. They are, in fact, the drivers of the revolution when the Muslim Brothers were wringing their hands over wether to join the protests that toppled Mubarak. Clearly they were naive to call out the army, but I seriously doubt they can accept the release of Mubarak and the recreation of the secret police. It was always clear that the army was the real power center. They have appealed to it twice, but they can appeal to it (or the generals, at least) no more.

Admittedly I may just be looking for some sort of reasonable ending to two years of incredible bravery and mass revolt. I know there are no happy endings, certainly not for the families of the dead, but I can't imagine that the Egypt we've seen for the last two years will just roll over as the counter revolution takes them back as if the last two years hadn't happened. Though the repression of the army is not a genie that will be easily re-bottled (another bad cliche), but the same, I believe or at least strongly want to believe, goes for the revolution and the masses of people who have now turned out to topple two western-backed governments in two years.

The following drips of naiveté (as does the above, I'm sure) but it also shows that the Tamarod maybe didn't quite expect it to come to this.

http://www.albawaba.com/news/tamarod-concerned-interior-ministrys-mubarak-era-moves-509983

Egypt's "Rebel" (Tamarod) campaign issued a statement Sunday saying they are highly concerned with comments made by Minister of Interior Mohamed Ibrahim that they understood as foregrounding the possible return of the notorious Mubarak era state security apparatus.

In a press conference held by the interior ministry Saturday, Ibrahim announced that departments of state security tasked with fighting extremism and monitoring political and religious activity, terminated after the January 25 Revolution, have been reinstated. He further added that a new police reshuffle will be announced Monday and will include police officers who have been excluded before.

"Our campaign supports the state's plans in fighting terrorism; however, we have earlier stressed that this support doesn't include the taking of extraordinary measures, or the contradiction of freedoms and human rights," said Mahmoud Badr, spokesman of the Rebel campaign, in a press statement.

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 20 2013 3:19 utc | 150

"They have appealed to it twice, but they can appeal to it (or the generals, at least) no more." - This is beginning to remind me of Faust & his poodle Mephistopheles.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 20 2013 3:42 utc | 151

37/138 Yep, it is propaganda time now in Egypt. Fool who believes all. The enemy has to be dehumanized so people accept the killing.
Fact is the generals cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood, took out their leadership and their channels of communication. So now we cannot be sure what is really the Muslim Brotherhood, what are others. Fact is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has at least allied themselves with the forces who commit atrocities and acts against the state now.
The crackdown was done in such a bloody way that a violent reaction was likely. That was intentional. Clue, it was done during daylight. So the violence works for the generals as they now can "fight terrorism".

Frightened people always fall into the trap to support the strong man. This is generally known, universally used by power brokers, and works all the time.

The counterstrategy of the Muslim Brotherhood is to gain sympathy by martyrdom. So they think the violence works for them, too. Between those two strategies real - poor - people get killed.
The generals and the Muslim Brotherhood draw their personnel from the same - poor - families.
Both, the army and the Muslim Brotherhood dangerously destabilize Egypt.


Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 4:39 utc | 152

The Obama administration is still trying to have it both ways - this is funny

Senator: Obama Administration Secretly Suspended Military Aid to Egypt


Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 4:57 utc | 153

Now Badie got arrested too, another crackdown added days before EU meet on Egypt, which in any case wont generate any real impact anyway though.

Journalist: Egyptian military protects US interests
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/20/319567/egyptian-military-protects-us-interests/

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 5:40 utc | 154

154) This here is Human Rights Watch on the sit-ins
"We know that protesters from the sit-in shot at the police and that policemen were killed"

Let's face it - it is clear that police all over the world overreacts when in danger to be shot at - presumably they knew people in the sit in had weapons.

There are a lot of questions Muslim Brotherhood members should ask their leadership. The Al Jazeera strategy failed in Syria, why should it work in Egypt without the international support thrown behind it in Syria.

There is disregard of human life on all sides. Time for humans to leave their leadership to fight it out alone.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 6:13 utc | 155

gregg

If the aid will be cut, we would know about it, US will keep funding Sisi, be sure of that.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 6:32 utc | 156

somebody

Where did you get that sit-in quote, I couldnt find it in the vid.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 6:38 utc | 157

Rowan #139 - I did nopt include you in the tag team. You are surely your very unique own self, for better or for worse....

But brian and mina are. Too much of a classic troll behavior.

Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 20 2013 6:48 utc | 158

157) Ole Solvang Human Rights Watch at 2:12
We know that some protesters in the sit-in threw rocks, possessed fire arms, fired at police, police offers were killed ....

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 7:04 utc | 159

sorry typa 159 - police officers were killed.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 7:05 utc | 160

somebody

Right but the word "sit in" is not there in the vid.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 7:50 utc | 161

Rowan #139 - I did not include you in the tag team. You are surely your very unique own self, for better or for worse.... Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 20, 2013 2:48:24 AM | 158
That's very nice of you. Indeed I am very unique own self, or at least I'm working on it. Though I often call myself a Marxist, I am also following Spinoza, as some quite eminent Marxists do, and although he is reputed to be an atheist and a materialist, in fact his system lends itself to a form of individualist mysticism, whereby the philosopher becomes a local manifestation of "the mind of God." I use salvia divinorum, a psychedelic drug that is oddly still legal, to acquire this philosophical outlook. It's a fascinating though initially quite disconcerting drug. After a while, the user finds himself or herself literally focused in on and mentally manipulated by... something... one hopes it's "the mind of God." By the way my reference to Faust and his poodle Mephistopheles was to Goethe's Faust, about which Jung often writes. Apparently the demon frequents the magician in the form of a poodle, which he himself does not recognise for a long time, so eventually he gets the rather memorable line, "So that's what was in the poodle!", when Mephistopheles unmasks himself.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 20 2013 7:55 utc | 162

@161

He made it up,

He does that frequently

THAT is why many people here consider him to be completely unthrustworthy

When pressed for evidence, what he presents rarely backs up his statements.

The man is a born liar, that's why he's called "zomebody"

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 8:15 utc | 163

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 19, 2013 9:34:48 PM | 149

good luck finding sources that arent! the issue is whats true and whats isnt

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 8:25 utc | 164

But brian and mina are. Too much of a classic troll behavior.

Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 20, 2013 2:48:24 AM | 158

classic troll behavour is to use pseudonymns

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 8:26 utc | 165

@bevin, 145

Brian tells us that the Brotherhood have hired Palestinians to shoot at policemen. No doubt they do so from the backs of hobgoblins and dragons. 

actually it was from the backs of unicorns, according to my super-duper totally thrustworty totally anonymous and objective Isreali contacts

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 8:28 utc | 166

over at Pennyforyourthoughts: someone has my back

AnonymousAugust 18, 2013 at 1:35 PM
brian

Well done on the MB debunking at MoA. I noticed the notthetalk.com sayanim gang had another go at you. Expect something nasty from Bernie the sayan, as well, as he is one of that group of sayanim.
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/a-bloodbath-that-is-not-and-new.html#comment-form

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 8:31 utc | 167

161) he says "on this day" - it is clear from the written Human Rights Watch Report. It is clear that leaders from both sides planned exactly for this outcome - one side counting on the demonization of Muslim Brotherhood members the other side counting on the rallying force of victimhood. The description of the end of the sit in in the Human Rights Watch Video - Muslim Brotherhood leaders negotiating safe exit -is very revealing as this would have been possible from the start.

Protester Violence
At a news conference on August 14, the minister of interior said his forces had exercised “extreme restraint” and that 43 police officers had died, many of them at Rab’a al-Adawiya. A resident who had gone outside when he first heard the sound of shooting told Human Rights Watch that at around 7:30 a.m. he saw three dead police officers being carried out of the Tiba Mall shopping center near one of the entrances to the sit-in. So there was a minority in the sit in shooting whilst the "vast majority" of the protesters did not have firearms. What would be the result of this in any country (compare to Waco Siege) - the outcome is clearly the responsibility of politicians from both sides who created this situation (and clearly the intention of both sides). The description of the ending of the sit in is very revealing - Muslim Brotherhood leaders successfully negotiated with the police for an exit - this would have been possible right from the start.

Accounts from witnesses and a review of video footage confirm that some gunfire was fired from the side of the protesters, in particular from around the Rab’a al-Adawiya mosque. For example, one resident said she saw at least three people with automatic rifles and hand guns at around 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. shooting towards police at Youssef Abbas Street. Statements by witnesses interviewed by Human Rights, including international journalists, and personal observations by a Human Rights Watch researcher who was in the area during the break-up, indicate that the vast majority of protesters were not in possession of, let alone displaying or using firearms. Witnesses said protesters lit fires using car tires and wood to mitigate against the effect of tear gas and threw broken pieces of the pavement at police.

International legal standards allow the use of force in limited circumstances, and the intentional use of lethal force is only permitted where strictly necessary to protect life, which would include individuals using firearms targeted at the police. However, while security services may be justified in using a degree of force to stop protesters from throwing stones or Molotov cocktails, protesters’ violence cannot justify use of lethal force, let alone on the scale witnessed on August 14. Those planning the dispersal operations were under a strict duty to take all feasible measures to ensure the operations posed a minimal risk to life, which the organizers comprehensively failed to do.

Now come on sockpuppets I know you do not like this stuff :-))

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 9:14 utc | 168

Bait and switch as usual.

So basically he did not say what you claimed he said.

Got it, thanks

Zome things never change, eh?

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 9:19 utc | 169

What a beautiful demonstration of the fact many readers here have not the tiniest idea of democracy.
You consider "trolls" anyone who happen to have an opinion which is not yours? Fantastic. I know MoA is a freezone and I have posted links to different websites and to the live events because there was a thread open on Egypt. Not because I feel a need to convince some people, who for some of them alas, happen to be paranoid racists or ufo watchers. I am sorry if the WASPs are corrupted to the bone, but it is probably the reason the US are falling down high speed. Some WASPs are always blaming the "lobby" for all their problems, just like the Egyptian MBs are now blaming the Christians (no Coptic minister and no Coptic general is around, that I know of), while they won't say a word against KSA (even though Saud al Faysal is very vocal against them in the last few days), because it is "moral authority" for the sheeps.

As for Angry Arab telling his readers that "the supporters of the MB are the poor". That's simply not true: during Mubarak's time, the MB were known to get their best percentages among lawyers and engineers syndicates. Many of the poor of the pictures cannot make the difference betwen MB and the Nur party in terms of programme, so you can't really call them "supporters" especially when it was a way during ramadan to get a meal. I would like to know in what "the poor" support the MB versus Nur, if AA really believes so. During the election campaign, it was easy to trick people by saying: vote for the "scales" or for the "horse", or "for the ladder" i. e. different symbols used on the bulletins to represent the parties, since almost half the Egyptian population cannot read.

The tension is high: soldiers at a checkpoint killed regional directors of State media because they dared approaching a check-point after curfew:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/79486/Egypt/Politics-/AlAhram-journalist-shot-dead-at-military-checkpoin.aspx
That's the typical kind of chaotic incompetence that explains why in EGypt the thread between becoming a failed state and saving it is thin.

Posted by: Mina | Aug 20 2013 9:27 utc | 170

The shorter Zina
"Everyone i disagree with is a racist!

The poor are too ignorant to know what they vote for,

Support the military, kill kil kill! "

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 9:38 utc | 171

hmmm

+1. Great more people notice.


somebody

You repeatedly said that he HRW said "sit in" then when debunked you refer to the HRW report, trying to use that to back your claim, refering to one witness that saw 3 protesters with arms and the HRW also debunks your claim that the attacks were justified.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 9:42 utc | 172

Counterpunch has a pro-Morsi article today in which the authors say merrily that they are not poor but self-employed, ie small businessmen, and their complaint is that the army is constantly muscling on their rackets:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/19/egypt-during-the-reign-of-the-lunatics/

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 20 2013 9:44 utc | 173

172) "Accounts from witnesses and a review of video footage confirm
that some gunfire was fired from the side of the protesters, in particular from around the Rab’a al-Adawiya mosque. "
what in the Human Rights Watch
English
don't you understand? Rab’a al-Adawiya mosque is the site of the sit in, right?
When I write "It is clear that leaders from both sides planned exactly for this outcome - one side
counting on the demonization of Muslim Brotherhood members, the other side counting on the rallying force of victimhood."
where does that imply justified? I am saying both leadership is not concerned about casualties but planned for those casualities,
and the people in danger of becoming casualties should stop following that type of leadership.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 9:59 utc | 174

Now he has moved on to arguing against his own strawman

Zome things never change

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 10:01 utc | 175

somebody

Question is why you kept using a quote when there was none?
No one in here deny that some protesters used violent means, what people deny is the link you try to drag between these minority that used a stone or a bullet, to justify the killing of hundreds of civilians.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 10:05 utc | 176

Yep,
An outright lie, followed swiftly by a strawman attack.

Thats his preferred m.o. alright

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 10:08 utc | 177

@176

He gets away with it a lot of the time, that is why he keeps doing such things.
Basic dishonest nature

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 10:10 utc | 178

176)

No one in here deny that some protesters used violent means

o.k. that is agreed then

what people deny is the link you try to drag between these minority that used a stone or a bullet, to justify the killing of hundreds of civilians.

Now, let's test our understanding of "justify" - "justify" means one side was right and the other side was wrong, right?

I am not saying that. I am saying that the leaderships of two sides de facto colluded in producing death as it served their
- different - interest.

Definition of collusion: To act together secretly to achieve a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose; conspire.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 10:30 utc | 179

somebody

Thats exactly what you are saying. Now, apparently there was a conspiracy by the "leadership" to use violence according to you, if you read the HRW report or if you watch the HRW video you will see there is no basis for that, contrary HRW point out there were a small minority (too small to even call a minority actually) that used violent means and there was no justification for the assault on the protesters and there is nothing in the report of the absurd claim that these 800 people wanted to be executed.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 10:39 utc | 180

Oh dear, you're using logic

This ain't gonna end well . . . Logic never works with this guy

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 10:58 utc | 181

180) ok, we are on common ground. I said - "de facto" colluding -.

What I mean is this:

From the side of the Egyptian army leadership There are many ways to end a sit-in. They know that. They are the experts, trained in stuff like that. It is a no brainer, it is easy.
Like: You surround the sit in and let people out but not in. You can frisk everybody and arrest at will that way. If you are afraid of bullets you can position your tanks around it and your soldiers are safe. Russia used to invade hostile Warsaw pact countries that way. Armies can do that. Food and drink is bound to run out in very short time.

From the side of the Muslim Brotherhood: It is always possible to tell your followers to live to fight another day. The quote in Germany for that is "our grand children will put up a better fight". You need grand children for that.

So why did neither the Egyptian army nor the Muslim Brotherhood do anything like that quite the contrary?

From the side of the Egyptian army leadership: "Fighting terrorism" forces everybody behind them. Some protesters are armed? Brilliant.

From the side of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership:
The only cards left now in negotiations are
a) pressure by a shocked international audience seeing grisly images of the crackdown in their media (which earns money by having the most exciting bloody images/videos on their front pages)
b) shocked Egyptians rallying around them
Police overreact because they get shot at? Brilliant.

This is what I mean by de facto collusion.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20 2013 11:19 utc | 182

In one full year, Morsi couldn't find in his agenda a pro-MB ambassador or general who could speak today in his favour and resign.
The Egyptian ambassador to the UK compares the MB to the Nazis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/10252399/Muslim-Brotherhood-must-be-removed-like-Nazis-Egypts-ambassador-to-Britain-says.html

But Erdogan knows better (until the next joint military exercise)
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/79509/World/Region/Turkey-PM-claims-Israel-behind-Morsi-ouster.aspx

Posted by: Mina | Aug 20 2013 11:22 utc | 183

It's "kill, kill, kill" versus "butcher, butcher, butcher", in a country where 90 percent of women are victims of FGM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation)
But "the Poor" are so cool. And the best with them is that they want to remain poor, and illiterate too, isn't it?

Posted by: Mina | Aug 20 2013 11:29 utc | 184

You're chucking FGM at us now, Zina?

Can the kitchen sink be far behind?

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 11:36 utc | 185


Sukant Chandan
A really important point I forgot to mention is that the first thing Scaf (Egyptian Army) did after chucking Morsi was to stop counter-revolutionary Syrians coming freely to Egypt, and slapped visa regulations on them to limit Egypt as a pro-nato base of counter-revolution in the region. The white pro-imperialist guy was very short in his answers and addressed nothing of what I said, dunno why exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogk2nhmReJQ&feature=youtu.be

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 11:41 utc | 186

@Zina

But "the Poor" are so cool. And the best with them is that they want to remain poor, and illiterate too, isn't it?

is it?

you're the one then brought the 99% into this conversation, Zina.

you did it when you were trying to big-up yer "Genuine loving and caring cuddly pro-democracy pro-99% revolutioary" image

now you just sound bitter that anyone dared to point out the dissonance.

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 11:41 utc | 187

You're repeating yourself again, brian

Constant repetitious spamming does nothing for your argument

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 11:50 utc | 188

90% of women are victims of FGM... Posted by: Mina | Aug 20, 2013 7:29:15 AM | 184
This is not irrelevant, as hmm suggests (by comparing it to the "kitchen sink" in #105); unlike a lot of other things, it is a practical proposition to ban it. Of course, it would be a major battle, with enormous religious revolts and violent protests, and it would tend to work as a class issue in reverse (because the middle class are less likely to do it), but because it's so vile, I think I would break my own rule (about class issues being the only valid ones) and go for a campaign to ban it.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 20 2013 12:01 utc | 189

@brian, #190: Tarpley is an extreme pro-Sisi man. It's interesting. Tarpley keeps insisting that Sisi is a "Nasserist", by which he means to say that the army is the only possible principal agent of progressive nationalism. Tarpley draws the obvious distinction between progressive nationalism, and reactionary nationalism like that of the Saudis, and he takes it for granted that the US, like all imperialist powers, will back the reactionary nationalists over the progressive ones every time, though it will pretend otherwise. The US (again, like all imperialist powers) will pretend to be terrifically interested in the social progress of its clients, then it will make a big show of being stymied by the reactionary religious blocs, and finally it will pretend to play umpire, while quietly adopting the most reactionary blocs as clients, just like the British did in India. Really, Tarpley's criteria for progressive nationalism are the same as they would have been during the Cold War. He is a natural supporter of the Non-Aligned Movement, the 1955 Bandung Conference group, as opposed to the Soviet satellites. His values and assumptions haven't changed a lot since then.

@self, 189: I should add, I would also be in favour of a campaign against male circumcision. In fact, there is one. This is such a basic issue, and the idea of disintegrating the religious blocs is so attractive, I can't resist it.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 20 2013 12:17 utc | 191

Now rowan, don't pretend you haven't noticed that zina tends to emotionalise the conv. when called on her obvious dissonance

She s quite happy to use anything in an argument without actually caring much for it.

First it was the 99% , to portray herself as a defender of "de peepil"

And then fgm, to pretend that anyone pointing out her dissonance is a supporter of fgm.

of course you also appear to be jumping on that bandwaggon to, so me mentioning zinas behaviour is probably wasted on you

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 12:25 utc | 192

rowan...that makes you an extremely pro-MB man....and which do you suppose egyptians see as the more supportable?

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 12:31 utc | 193

Zina's dissonance gets zillier and zillier.

Regarding fgm, the silly sockpuppet completely forget that fgm flourished under the military backed regimes. Now here she is using the existance of fgm as a defence when questioned on her support for the military

Oh dear.

Poor zina, all twistered up in illogical knots

What a tangled web you weave, Zina

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 12:43 utc | 194

hmm, #194. It depends. The military has to make alliances with business blocs and also with social blocs, if it wants to govern consensually (which it will, they are not stupid). And under certain conditions, it would ally itself with progressive blocs, launch public health campaigns, etc.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 20 2013 13:03 utc | 195

Yeah, seems i was right

Completely wasted on you, rowan

Posted by: hmm | Aug 20 2013 13:14 utc | 196

Vladimir Putin said:"

The US kills the Islamists in Afghanistan, Surrounding them in Gaza, Fighting them in Mali, Supporting them in Egypt, and arming them in Syria"

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 13:16 utc | 197

News has it that a UN instance (which?) urge Egypt to let inspectors in. Seems like a great idea however it would certainly be rejected by Sisi.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20 2013 14:01 utc | 198

@hfakhry:
BBC Radio asked to interview me as a Copt from #Minya, but retracted once they read my views re international bias. #Egypt

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 14:26 utc | 199

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 20, 2013 10:01:49 AM | 198

bad idea: it was UN that helped destroy libya

Posted by: brian | Aug 20 2013 14:27 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.