Skip to main content

As a Liberal who believes in Democracy, a Jew and a Woman I feel compelled to defend the democratic rights of the Muslim Brotherhood  in Egypt.  By now it is common knowledge that there has been a “Military Coup” in Egypt that has overthrown the Democratically elected government of    Mohamed Morsi.  US law is crystal clear in that if a democratically elected government  is over thrown by force all military aid is to  be  cut off from that country until the rightful government is reinstated. Because Mohamed Morsi  and his followers belonged to the  Muslim Brotherhood our Congress and the Obama administration have chosen to look the other way and “not” call Morsi’s deposer a “coup”, thus triggering sanctions. Even Obama supporters like Eugene Robinson notice this "elephant in the room":

"A day after Egypt’s military-backed “interim” government slaughtered hundreds of protesters and assumed sweeping emergency powers, Obama still could not bring himself to call what is happening a coup d’etat. Speaking from Martha’s Vineyard, he described it as an “intervention.” In Cairo, meanwhile, authorities were still counting the bodies of those slain in Wednesday’s massacre."

Robinson finally deciding to "grow a pair" when on to state the obvious:

"But the way to oust elected leaders is with ballots, not bullets. How can the United States claim to stand for democracy and ignore this fundamental precept? How could Secretary of State John Kerry say, as he did earlier this month, that the Egyptian military was “in effect ... restoring democracy” by seizing power and throwing the president in jail?"

http://www.truthdig.com/...

 One lone Senator (Rand Paul)  like his father (Ron Paul) found the courage to confront the congress and the Obama administration pointing out their “unlawful” behaviour triggered the wrath of both heads of the beast that is the “Corporate Media”.  MSNBC and FOX  in unison attacked the younger Paul as they both have  his father in the pass for daring to display intellectual honesty concerning our foreign  policies.  

Remember the Muslim Brother Hood did not keep a boot on the throats of the Egyptian people for 30 years; it was Mubarak and what Army?

http://www.dailykos.com/...

Egypt is a test case for groups like the Brother hood, Hamas (Gaza)  who came in from “out of the cold”,  laid down their arms and joined the political system; won elections only to be “violently” undermined  by Lords of chaos (USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia).  Make no mistake, the Egyptian  military makes no moves without first checking with the regional “big three”.

As a Woman and a Jew I personally would not vote for the Brotherhood, but nor would I vote for many of the right-wing Christian Tea-Party types in this country. That being said, when the religious right win elections in this country being pro-democracy, I would never suggest that they be overthrown by our military. And if they were violently deposed like the Brotherhood  I would I hesitate to call a “coup” a coup.    

Bottom line is either we are for Democracy or we are not? Yes, Morsi and the Brotherhood  did engage in "hard ball politics (stacking the courts) just as FDR, Reagen, and Bush in this country. What the Corporate Media here and in Egypt omits is that those same courts were filled with left over Mubarak supports who did everything possible to derail the revolution. Although I disagree with Juan Coles conclusion, I understand his reasoning.

http://www.truthdig.com/...

Note:

 Chris Hedges at Truthdig sums up my feelings as to what is happening in Egypt in his latest post "Murdering the Wretched of the Earth":

http://www.truthdig.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And what if a the U.S. executive basically (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, dhonig, Radiowalla

    granted itself unlimited powers, like Morsi did?

    What would you do then?

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:33:55 AM PDT

    •  I will assume that your (0+ / 0-)

      statement  is factual and Morsi  did over step in the same way our "elected"  officials over-stepped with the Patriot Act, TARP and the Carl Levin sponsored NDAA. The Egyptian military is and has always been the power behind the facades that control the country:

      " Mubarak and what army?"

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      •  Uh, no, Morsi went far, far beyond any of that. (0+ / 0-)

        He basically gave himself the right to do anything he wanted, no matter what the courts or anyone else had to say about it.

        What would you do if the U.S. Executive did that?

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:41:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you get any more (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JDsg

          vague than "he gave himself the right to do anything he wanted"?

          Bush,  Obama and our Congress have pulled 13 Trillion out of our economy (TARP); suspended  habeas corpus for citizens accused with Terrorism; Put US citizens to death without a trial,  and Carl Levin's NDAA  open the doors to lock "any" US citizen without trial indefinitely!

          I am very specific, why don't you give me a few examples of Morsi's unlawful behavior?  

          •  How about this (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lawrence, trumpeter, jabney

            Widely reported from last November:

            Mr Morsi declared unilaterally that until a new constitution is decreed all presidential decisions would be immune from legal challenge.

            "The president can issue any decision or measure to protect the revolution," said his statement, read out on television by his personal spokesman, Yasser Ali.

            "The constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal."

            That was the beginning of the end for Morsi.

            •  In all fairness that is a good (0+ / 0-)

              example of Morsi over stepping. But one can draw the same conclusion concerning the NSA spying, the Patriot  Act and the NDAA in this country. The only difference is that both parties in this country are working together to destroy our freedoms and constitution where as in Egypt the "old" guard wants back in power.

          •  Well, tbh, Bush was illegitimate and should have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kane in CA

            been replaced.

            Why do you need me to give you specifics? They're easy to find with a simple Google search...

            After Morsi 'temporarily' granted himself unlimited powers to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure which remained in place in late November 2012,[7][8] and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, hundreds of thousands of protesters began demonstrating against him in the 2012 Egyptian protests.[9][10] On 8 December 2012, Morsi annulled his decree which had both expanded his presidential authority and removed judicial review of his decrees, an Islamist official said, but added that the effects of that declaration would stand.[11]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:23:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You do realize that (0+ / 0-)

              the Military is putting Mubarak's thugs back in power? This is just the retaking of the country by the same power that controlled Egypt for 30 years. Don't you understand that one can not like the Brother hood, yet still respect the result of elections.

              •  I'm sure that Egyptians would have respected (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kane in CA, valion

                the result of the elections, even if they were seriously flawed, if Morsi had not overreached and tried to ram the MB dogmatism through and take total control of power.

                One should try and bee a wee bit inclusive when one has just begun Democracy and is just establishing a constitution, you know?

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:57:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  He declared he had the right to alter the constitu (0+ / 0-)

            constitution by decree

            HOwever, just because he decrees the constitution changed does not mean the rest of the government officials have to follow that, and the judiciary for example can impose the restrictions of the constitution by ruling the amendments by decree void.

            There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

            by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:06:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The appropriate response (0+ / 0-)

      is to roll back those changes, not to instigate a coup.  Impeach and remove if that's what's needed (I'm not sure what provisions the Egyptian consittution had for removing officials breaking the law. In fact, the Egyptian judiciary was considering precisely this move. If a President acts in an extraconstitutional manner, then there are consitutional methods to remove him.

      I mean, there is a growing case to be made that Obama has violated significant portions of the constitution on unilateral decree also, and our remedy is not to have the Pentagon sieze control, but to have the public and other branches of government push back to undo the changes.

      There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:04:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One can be for democracy, yet not (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, kirrix, dhonig, Radiowalla

    for every democracy. If a democratically elected government decides to institute unconstitutional provisions based on theocratic principles, it is pretty hard for me to get upset when and if they are deposed. It's not like Egypt enjoyed a 200-year run of democracy that was ended out of the blue. Their situation is very fluid, with the only stability seen in recent years based on what amounted to a dictatorship. I don't know how anyone could feel too strongly in favor of either Morsi's or the more recent government. It's a fucking mess.

    •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JDsg

      just like Bush and Obama was removed from office for their unconstitutional actions.

      And killing democracy in its infancy is good. Who knows what happens in 200 years of democracy, God forbid military will never be able to return then.

    •  Such is the "white man's burden" (0+ / 0-)

      to acknowledge the savages are unable to understand Democracy. Your argument can be made for the Christian Right in America, yet we do not depose them at gun point when they win elections. The "mess" you speak of in Egypt has a lot to do with the CIA who used the Brotherhood to over throw Nasser (1952) and supported Mubarak's boot on their necks for 30 years.    

    •  But there is another issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mindful Nature

      And that is the right of Morsi supporters to protest without being massacred.

    •  That's where we see who is committed to (0+ / 0-)

      democracy and who isn't.  It is only when the people of a nation elect a government you don't like does a commitment to respect the decision of the Egyptian people come into play.  Here, we find that since we Americans don't like the people the Egyptians elected, we're totally cool with a coup.

      Which is precisely how we know that Americans do not, in fact, believe in democracy.

      There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:10:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  *laughs* (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence

        What about when the people of a nation elect a government that perverts the process, suborns power, and the executive declares himself dictator, his decisions unchallengeable in the court system?

        The Egyptians elected one government.  The one they threw out was a different governement, even though it was headed by the same guy.

        •  nah (0+ / 0-)

          the one the US backed military threw out was simply one we didn't like.  Kind of an old story.

          There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:42:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Proof? (0+ / 0-)

            Any, at all?  Or is this just CT?

            The government which was thrown out was fundamentally different from the one which was elected.  Since you're not challenging this assertion, occam's razor cedes the point to me.

            •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

              That's about the dumbest argument ever

              So a snark too far.  In fact a large portion of Egyptians are Islamists or supportive of Islamists.  A majority in fact.  And that majority more or less got the Islamist government Rey voted for.  If it wasn't exactly what some wanted, that is the nature of electoral politics.  God knows many people who voted for Obama have similar complaints to lodge.  Now. Just because a lot of opponents take to the streets is no basis for a coup

              As to the extrajudicial decrees, the process is for the judiciary to overturn them or even for popular protest to convince the government to backtrack, not to depose the government.  It is the height of hypocrisy to resort to an overthrow and suspension of the constitution because of complaints the constitution is being ignored.

              Now, of course many Americans support the coup largely because they dislike the choice of the Egyptian people, and not out of any great concerns for Democracy.

              I am curious how many of the American coup supporters supported the attempted coup against Chavez which had many of the same complaints to make?

              There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

              by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:06:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  The mass slaughter that is going on in Egypt (0+ / 0-)

    is not putting it on the path to democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood seems determined to stand on its position as the democratically elected government. It seems probable that Egypt is moving toward something like the ongoing civil war in Syria. Given Egypt's size and prominence, this would have truly serious international consequences.  

    •  What do you base this belief on? (0+ / 0-)
      It seems probable that Egypt is moving toward something like the ongoing civil war in Syria.
      Most people who know a lot about Egypt don't really seem to agree with you on that.

      Here's an example:

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:59:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Al Jazeera, breath life into (0+ / 0-)

        by the  Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa; not that's an independent news source.

        Look, like the Tea Party, the Muslim Brother hood is not with out their flaws. I seems clear that this is yet another attempt to reinstate Mubarak's thugs and cancel out the elections.  

        •  Yeah, Al Jazeera is basically pro-Morsi..... (0+ / 0-)

          that doesn't man that the analyst on the show is wrong when he says that Egypt is not like Syria.

          In fact, if you know enough about the region, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that Egypt is not like Syria.

          I disagree with your conclusion.  There were millions in the streets demonstrating for the removal of Morsi and I think that Egyptians have a better shot at a true democracy this way than they would have had if Morsi had been able to consolidate power.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:54:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, let me get this straight, (0+ / 0-)

            you think the Egyptian people have a better shot at Democracy with the same (US supported) military who kept a boot on their necks for 30 years then they would under their first Democratically elected leader (like him or not)? Sure, why not keep the whole of the Middle East under the boots of Dictators we support? That Way Israel will "feel" safe and our corporate  oil int rest will be  looked after. To hell with the "generations" of Muslims who will never know Democracy! And you people call yourselves Liberals???

            •  Yes, I do. (0+ / 0-)

              The election was far from perfect, ie. lots of Democracy activists were alleging fraud.

              Hehe, you obviously don't know my history as a DailyKos liveblogger of the Arab Spring else you wouldn't be writing such silly comments.  

              It was pretty clear that Egypt wasn't heading towards democracy with Morsi in power, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

              As for U.S. influence in Egypt right now... it's not exactly strong.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:11:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  sure (0+ / 0-)

            there will millions who demonstrated for Morsi also, and more importantly voted for him.

            I think the notion that Egyptian democracy is not now truly dead is fanciful.  The military has control again.  What possible reason do they have for giving it up.   It will be decades before there is another Arab Spring in Egypt now that the military has shown it will massacre those who try to demonstrate against it.

            There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

            by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:13:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you don't understand Egypt, tbh, and are (0+ / 0-)

              trying hard to have it fit an ideological narrative.

              According to polls, the amount of anti- Morsi demonstrators on the street, and the fact that far fewer pro-Morsi demonstrators showed up after his removal than the MB had hoped for shows pretty clearly that the vast majority of Egyptians wanted him gone.

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:03:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Algeria (0+ / 0-)

        is probably a closer analogy than Syria.

        There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

        by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:11:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about double speak (0+ / 0-)

      "he Muslim Brotherhood seems determined to stand on its position as the democratically elected government. "

      Hello! They are the Democratically elected government!"

    •  Did the "mass slaughter" of the (0+ / 0-)

      Natives  in this country put us on a road to Democracy? Did the war with the British? Did the enslavement of Africans?

      Allow them to be just as "human" as we were.

  •  Please look into the take over of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla

    the Constitutional provisions by the Morsi regime and the Brotherhood.  They promised not to change the secular nature of the Egyptian government and went about doing exactly the opposite.  The brotherhood is not to be trusted as their bottom line is to create an Islamic state. As a woman, you should not only be aware of that, but read some of the writings from Egyptian women who saw the fearful writing on the wall after Morsi came in.

    •  We are on the same page; (0+ / 0-)

      I have stated already that the Brother hood in my opinion is akin to the Tea Party and the Religious Right here in America. If they had their way this country would be a Christian State where women and non-Christians like myself  would be second class citizens. While we are on the subject of "Religious States", who do you feel about the "Jewish" State of Israel?

      •  Do you mean to ask "What" do I feel (0+ / 0-)

        rather than "who"?

        If so, overall, I feel that any government that hitches itself to a religion runs the risk of blending their religious mythologies and ideas into their politics and foreign policy, and that can be anything from benignly silly to dangerous.  

  •  Assail the violence (0+ / 0-)

    Assail the attacks on democracy. But defending the Muslim Brotherhood is like defending the Nazis against unfair attacks. Are you familiar with their history?

    •  So, because Hitler was elected (0+ / 0-)

      democratically, we should only support the Democratically elected heads of State we like personally; who play ball with our global agenda; who share the same beliefs and religion?  Hitler will no more make me stop believing in Democracy than the attack on 9/11 will "punk" me into giving up my Constitutional rights!

      •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Praxical

        Support the democratic process. Morsi and the MB turned that process on its head. Exactly as the Nazis did. Maybe worse than the Nazis did. In hindsight, would an overthrow of Hitler in the early 30's have been a good thing?

        •  maybe (0+ / 0-)

          depends on whether the military dictatorship that would have taken the place of the Nazis would have been just as bad.  Knowing what I know about the German military at the time, it would not have been.

          There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The analogy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Praxical

        to the Nazis isn't a bad one, simply because it points out the threat that a government can unravel the democratic institutions unless it doesn't have the authority to do so.  ONe of the strengths of the US constitution is that one cannot amend it unless there is widespread consensus over a considerable period of time.

        Here, the issue with Morsi is his attempt to grant himself authority to change the constitution at will.  That's a major problem (and it's a major problem with the NSA scandal as well).

        As I have said before, the answer to this problem is not a military dictatorship.

        There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

        by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A democratically elected President (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, Radiowalla, Kane in CA, Praxical

    who appoints himself dictator has no right or privilege because of how he came to power.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:52:22 AM PDT

  •  I really don't get the part (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    "as a woman, I feel compelled to defend the democratic rights of the Muslim brotherhood."  

    Uh-huh.

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

    •  As a Woman and a Jew (0+ / 0-)

      I have "nothing" to gain by defending the Brother Hood. My only interest is Democracy plain and simple (understand)?  If we tell groups like the Muslim Brother Hood, Hamas, IRA to lay down their arms; renounce violence and join the Political process we owe then "fairness" when they win.

  •  A striking example of where relativism... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kane in CA

    can take us, where the Muslim Brotherhood is seen as no different than the Tea Party.

    Would the diarist rather live under the MB or Tea Party, if she had to choose, and why?

    •  Like live your term "relativism"; (0+ / 0-)

      the neo-cons applied it to almost ever situation they disagreed with. As far as my living under the Tea Party or the Brother Hood, I would reject both at the ballot box. Unlike most, I do not find one group of religious fanatics any less repulsive than the next.  I think because the Brother hood is Muslim and the Tea Party is Christian the "questioner" views them as less threatening.

      •  It is applicable here... (0+ / 0-)

        in fine form, no matter my stripe that you project.

        You cannot even distinguish between groups that have virtually nothing in common!

        I know you would not vote for either, but that is not what I asked you. I asked who you would prefer to live under, if you had to choose.

        For your info, there are Jews among the Tea Party members. And many are not religious fanatics.

        Not to mention that I suspect you know little about the MB.

        •  Well, then let's go with the Christian (0+ / 0-)

          Domnionists. As between them and the MB, I'm not sure that the MB might not be the better choice.  I know I would have to keep a very low profile under either regime.

          There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:18:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

            Aside from your misstatement that ALL Tea Party members are Christian Dominionists, that you are not sure the MB would be worse is further testament to what I have been saying.

            It's just a game to you it seems, but I suspect you would change your tune in a flash if confronted by reality.

            Have you not seen what havoc the MB wrought on Egypt? It was a teaser.

            Do you know anything about the MB besides that they were democratically elected?

            •  not even close to what I said (0+ / 0-)

              Let's go with Dominionists instead  The're a closer analogue.  

              And, you know what?  I've lived in the middle east and studied Egyptian history and the history of the MB specifically.  So, I know rather a lot more than the usual demonizing US sources do.

              Interesting speculation.  Do you also think the same think of the AK?

              There’s no way for a healthy human being to maintain the level of outrage warranted by the situation. - Dave Roberts, grist.org

              by Mindful Nature on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:45:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, I thought it was the diarist... (0+ / 0-)

                and a continuum of the dialogue we were having.

                Do I think what? I am not really sure what you are asking.

              •  The MB might be a better choice? (0+ / 0-)

                Seriously?

                Aside from the fact that the dreaded Christians will never have a hold in our increasingly secular society, demonized as they are.

                Conversely, the MB took control over society and showed a glimpse of what it and its brethren had in store. They know what they want, even if we do not see fit to acknowledge. And what they want is far too prevalent in their world.

        •  Such is the last recource of a weak argument (0+ / 0-)

          to attempt to box me into a choice of your choosing to reach your own forgone conclusion.  I understand who the Muslim Brother Hood;  I also know that the Tea Party is as deadly to Democracy and women's rights because (to quote Glen Ford) they are more then the "lessor of the two evils" they are the more effective of the two evils" because they have convened you that they are less of a threat.  

          The Brother Hood Like the Islamist is Syria, The religious nuts we used in Libya, and AL-Qaida was used to kill young Russian (Charlie Wilson's War) will always serve as useful CIA tools to disrupt the region to protect out Oil interest and maintain the  Chaos we require for "Stability".

          •  Weak argument? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kane in CA

            I don't think you know squat about the MB, and it seems you hate Christians even more.

            I don't think you know squat about the Tea Party, either, only what you have been indoctrinated to believe. That is reinforced by the refernce now to the CIA and oil. Indoctrination pure and simple.

            And I am not a Christian or Tea Party member, or even a neocon as you tried to imply in your first response.

            That this is the best argument you can make is scary. I asked because I wanted to discern if you even had a clue between the two entities and I am not at all impressed that you do.

        •  Sounds like the "lesser of two evils" (0+ / 0-)

          argument. I will modify  Glen Fords response; the Tea Party is the "more effective of the two evils" in that they captured your support and the Brother Hood did not.  I see the Tea Party as far more dangerous to Women and civil rights then the unsophisticated Brother Hood.

          Above all these arguments is the question of are you pro Democracy?  And, yes Democracy is Messy! A neat little tin pot military Dictatorship in Middle East makes White people feel safe; we can't have those Muslims running "wild" over there making their own rules. Such was the White Man's Burden in Africa, Asia and now the Middle East.  

          •  I know what democracy is. (0+ / 0-)

            The MB is NOT for democracy, but expressly anti-democratic.

            The "democracy is a messy business" is flim-flam usually heard from people that speak in cliches without offering substance.

            This statement is pure ignorance:

            I see the Tea Party as far more dangerous to Women and civil rights then the unsophisticated Brother Hood.
            I suggest that you learn more about the MB because what you seem to know is very lacking, based on your comments.

            Finally, referring to white people, as if they are to blame, as with references to the CIA and oil previously, makes my original comment all the more strong in its accuracy.

            Could you describe the MB as a political entity?  

            •  The Muslim Brother Hood (0+ / 0-)

              won the elections because they have captured the hearts and minds of the poor. Chris Hedges explains in this his latest post at Truthgig:

              http://www.truthdig.com/...

              To a non-mu slim such as yourself, the MB are two dimensional bad guys who can not be reasoned with. As I said before, the MB played hard ball dirty politics; and I will go so far as to admit they "double-crossed" their coalition partners. But they should not be shot down like dogs in the streets.    

      •  The issue is not who you find 'repulsive'. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, Kane in CA

        The issue is how likely one or the other is to find you and your beliefs repulsive, and act on their beliefs.

        As to your blithe dismissal of the Nazi analogy: you might have been similarly repulsed by an anti-democratic  German military coup against the Nazis in 1936, but it seems hard to argue such an eventuality would have been a net negative for the world.

        I my view, all the political angst obscures most Egyptians fundamental question: who is best equipped to stop the economic meltdown and keep us fed. This, of course, broadens the argument to regional alliances and religious alignments, wherein election results are not a primary concern.

        •  By Regional alliances do you mean (0+ / 0-)

          Saudi Arabia, Qatar,  Kuwait, Jordan......?  All of these countries are US allies; none of the people of these countries Vote!  Our track record in the region borderlines on "pure evil" snuffing out Democracy, overthrowing elected leaders and using religious zealots to spread death and chaos when ever it suits our goals to capture Natural Resources (Oil). Climb down off your self-righteous horses long enough to notice the blood of millions of men women and children on our hands as we worship at the alter of BP and EXXON.

          •  Thanks. I figured you were hard core. (0+ / 0-)

            Your boilerplate response(s), oblivious to regional realities (e.g. NONE of them consider the U.S. an 'ally' in any meaningful way after this administration's performance) are laughable.  

            Name one of them this President would come to the aid of if they asked, based on precedent.

            •  If you think I am "Hard Core" you (0+ / 0-)

              have really been living in a box. To modify Harry Truman's statement; I am not hard core, I am a Liberal, I just look hard core when place next to "Progressives".  

              To your point; all of the countries I name above are part of what we call the Arab League. FDR signed on to protect the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia and we have served as their Global body guards ever since. Also remember we went to war to liberate Kuwait.

  •  It's not a "military coup"! (0+ / 0-)

    Such sloppiness with language!

    It's a "junta"!

  •  Democracy is a red herring. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kane in CA

    Yeah, the guy was elected democratically.  He then seized unilateral executive power, changed the constitution, and started instuting religious law -- which is exactly what the people did not want, and what he promised not to do when he was elected.

    In such a situation the only valid thing to do is to revolt and drag the bum out of power.  So what if he was democratically elected?  He turned out to be a liar and set himself up as a dictator.

    •  "So what if he was democratically elected?" (0+ / 0-)

      "  He turned out to be a liar and set himself up as a dictator."

      And you know this because???

      The Egyptian State Media after Mubarak was quickly bought up by a few rich pro Mubarak thugs who with the help of the US Corporate Media, CIA and Mossad greases the Propaganda wheels to drive the first Democratically elected leader in Egypt out of office. You know, kinda like the "crap" they tried to pull with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

      Now you "Replacement Liberals" jump on the band wagon in support of yet another military coup in the Middle East to reverse the Arab Spring.

      We are not that stupid; Like Iraq, Syria, Libya and soon to come Iran this is all part of a power grab to re colonize the Middle East.

      •  the world knows (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Praxical, Lawrence

        that he turned out to be a liar and a dictator, because the world watched him do it. It wasn't a secret. It wasn't propaganda. The Egyptians responded.

        •  Kane in CA, the World knows (0+ / 0-)

          not to trust the Corporate Media, CIA, NSA disinformation, Propaganda masquerading as truth. The World also knows the West  track record in the Middle East. Why do you think the "UNIMPORTANT" Third Word "dirt-People" of the World cheered when the Late Hugo Chavez, proclaimed at the UN that "the Devil was here"? WWI (65 million killed) and WWII (85 million killed) were both fought over colonialism; a fact! What we see in the Middle East now is the old colonial powers (Britain, France) reclaiming their old colonies (Iraq, Libya) with the help of the new global police America. The saddest component  to this "sick" scenario is that they are using a Brown face (Obama) to mask their agenda.    

          •  Are you suggesting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lawrence

            That when Morsi declared himself the final word last November, it didn't really happen?

            Britain and France want Iraq and Libya? Now I get where you're coming from. You should have said that in your diary. I would never have wasted my time here.

      •  Umm... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kane in CA, Lawrence

        ...It could be the fact that he suspended the constitution, gave himself unilateral power, and declared that his pronouncements could not be challenged in the courts?  AFAIK these facts are not in dispute.

        •  Question Praxical: (0+ / 0-)

          When we "liberated"  Kuwait from Iraq, why did we not insist that Democratic elections take place in that country? I ask the same question for Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and all the other non-voting Dictatorships we support in the Middle East? It would seem we support Democracy selectively and use it as a tool to destroy those the "powers that be" brands enemy.  

        •  Remember FDR, Regean and Bush (0+ / 0-)

          all "stacked the courts" and played dirty politics to gain an advantage, but I am sure you would not have been for their violent over throw?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site