Major doom in Egypt

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The US set up the Egyptian government? I thought we didn't get along with him at all.

 

Not even close. I am not sure which you are referring to so I will just go over both. Mubarak was a US sympathizer and provided us with a huge Arabic ally that we desperately needed. They knew their role and played it well. From the early 80's onward, Egypt has received more aid from us than practically any other nation in the world. We supported, funded, and helped rule Egypt under Mubarak's reign of tyranny for decades.

 

The relationship began to strain during our illegal "War on Terror" when they didn't commit soldiers as we wanted them to. The last revolt that threw Mubarak out of power was a coup we only supported after it was evident he was no longer our puppet. He didn't want to play the game anymore, so we got him out of there and set up an election for a new US sympathizer to be elected President.

 

Morsi loves the US and the US loves him. They will try desperately to keep him in power for as long as possible. Yes, that looks like it has come to an end... The Egyptian people are beginning to realize our world-building capabilities. I think it's evident in their serious opposition to our occupation of Iraq for so long after the conflict had mostly ended. A little light bulb went off over their heads and they realized that the same exact thing was happening to them... And quite frankly they are sick of it.

 

Can anyone blame them?

 

Popular will =/= democracy. A military coup that removed a President from office and then established an interim itself is not in any form democratic. They simply removed a democratically elected official. If anything it lends more support to the notion that real power is seized.

 

I never mentioned anything about mob rule or even democracy. That isn't the issue here. It seems like you had a mailed-in response ready and your previous question was simply being used as a catch-22. It also seems to have failed miserably.

 

The Egyptian government is oppressing its people. The Egyptian people are upset. The Egyptian people revolt and overthrow the tyrannical government to set up a new government.

 

You are insinuating that because he was... "voted" into office that the people should just put up with his ignorance and incompetence as everyone suffers. Why?

 

That's their right and they exercised it.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I never mentioned anything about mob rule or even democracy. That isn't the issue here. It seems like you had a mailed-in response ready and your previous question was simply being used as a catch-22. It also seems to have failed miserably.

 

Not at all. I'm questioning why anyone thinks this is democratic or libertarian. Your assumption is wrong, per the usual. My question was how is this democratic or libertarian and you gave me a quote from the Declaration of Independence. If your intent was not to relate the two together, then why did you reply to my question with that quote?

 

The Egyptian government is oppressing its people. The Egyptian people are upset. The Egyptian people revolt and overthrow the tyrannical government to set up a new government.

 

You are insinuating that because he was... "voted" into office that the people should just put up with his ignorance and incompetence as everyone suffers. Why?

 

That's their right and they exercised it.

 

I'm not sure how you read into my post that I think the Egyptian people should just sit down and take it up the rear from their government. My point is this: There's talk in this thread and MANY other places that the Egyptians have achieved liberty, democracy, freedom, whatever. But that's very clearly not the case. If anything they have moved in the opposite direction. There's nothing democratic or libertarian about your military removing an elected official from office, suspending the constitution, and placing an interim President in charge. The military used the public outrage as an excuse to remove someone they don't like, and the interim President is a former Mubarak court official. If they possess that kind of power then you have no free government and will probably never get that opportunity because they are running the show. It seems to me like Morsi wasn't much more than a puppet. If the Egyptian people were practicing democracy or at least wanted to, they would elect a new President rather than revolt against the current one. That's the reason they shifted from dictatorship to democracy in the first place.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Not at all. I'm questioning why anyone thinks this is democratic or libertarian. Your assumption is wrong, per the usual. My question was how is this democratic or libertarian and you gave me a quote from the Declaration of Independence. If your intent was not to relate the two together, then why did you reply to my question with that quote?

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you read into my post that I think the Egyptian people should just sit down and take it up the rear from their government. My point is this: There's talk in this thread and MANY other places that the Egyptians have achieved liberty, democracy, freedom, whatever. But that's very clearly not the case. If anything they have moved in the opposite direction. There's nothing democratic or libertarian about your military removing an elected official from office, suspending the constitution, and placing an interim President in charge. The military used the public outrage as an excuse to remove someone they don't like, and the interim President is a former Mubarak court official. If they possess that kind of power then you have no free government and will probably never get that opportunity because they are running the show. It seems to me like Morsi wasn't much more than a puppet. If the Egyptian people were practicing democracy or at least wanted to, they would elect a new President rather than revolt against the current one. That's the reason they shifted from dictatorship to democracy in the first place.

 

You want your cake and to eat it too.

 

You are saying I was wrong to say you just wanted the Egyptian people to take the abuse... but you are also against them acting on it and getting rid of the leader oppressing them. You are trying to argue both sides of the debate. If you want to argue with yourself, feel free... But if you are going to do that, don't get mad at me for calling you out on it.

 

In your scenario, the Egyptian people cannot support a coup to rid themselves of their oppressors... but they also shouldn't do the opposite, which is nothing.

 

That leaves them in some funky in between kind of limbo state. That isn't good for anybody.

 

The Egyptians rid themselves of an oppressing government. The United States as a reason to remove any and all aid to the country. The only ones losing here are the fat cats in Washington that bankrolled Egypt and Morsi who is/was nothing more than a puppet.

 

Why do the Egyptians NEED democracy? Why is it our job to tell them how to live, act, or govern themselves? If they were committing some grievous acts against humanity, sure... But they aren't. If they are happier with a different form or government or if they are happier with an interim president before they hold special democratic elections... So what?

 

The Egyptian people and government are trying to find their way and it isn't our duty to force them down one path or another. They must walk that path alone.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Man you need to slow down and actually read what I'm saying. I made it pretty obvious in that post that if the Egyptians wanted democracy (and they did, and they got it) then they can't just revolt when the leader THEY ELECTED is doing a shitty job. That's the entire point of democracy. If your leader sucks you vote in a new one. I may be incorrect on this but I think it was Alexis de Tocqueville who once said it is not the establishing administration that is most important to an infant democracy, but the one who is elected to replace it. I don't know if the Egyptians have a mechanism of impeachment that we enjoy here in the States, but if they do they could have used that to remove him. There has to be SOMETHING in their constitution that provides this if it's a democratic state.

 

Which leads me back to my original point: In democracy you don't need to revolt every time the government does something wrong. You simply vote new people in. That's the beauty of it. All it requires is a people who legitimately believe in democracy, and if the millions of protestors in Tahrir Square are any indication the Egyptian people do believe in it. So fucking use it.

 

But this is all off-topic and still hasn't answered my question, so I don't even know what we're doing here anymore. I still haven't seen an explanation for why a military coup qualifies as an increase in liberty or freedom or an expansion of democratic ideals or anything along those lines.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Man you need to slow down and actually read what I'm saying. I made it pretty obvious in that post that if the Egyptians wanted democracy (and they did, and they got it) then they can't just revolt when the leader THEY ELECTED is doing a shitty job. That's the entire point of democracy. If your leader sucks you vote in a new one. I may be incorrect on this but I think it was Alexis de Tocqueville who once said it is not the establishing administration that is most important to an infant democracy, but the one who is elected to replace it. I don't know if the Egyptians have a mechanism of impeachment that we enjoy here in the States, but if they do they could have used that to remove him. There has to be SOMETHING in their constitution that provides this if it's a democratic state.

 

Which leads me back to my original point: In democracy you don't need to revolt every time the government does something wrong. You simply vote new people in. That's the beauty of it. All it requires is a people who legitimately believe in democracy, and if the millions of protestors in Tahrir Square are any indication the Egyptian people do believe in it. So fucking use it.

 

But this is all off-topic and still hasn't answered my question, so I don't even know what we're doing here anymore. I still haven't seen an explanation for why a military coup qualifies as an increase in liberty or freedom or an expansion of democratic ideals or anything along those lines.

 

So you do want them to do nothing? Just sit and wait for the next elections? Thank you for talking in circles. It really clears up the confusion you cause.

 

If you can't see how the Egyptian people ridding themselves of an oppressor increases freedom or liberty, there is no hope for you, unfortunately. It's in the very definitions of what is going on here.

 

op·press (-prs)

tr.v. op·pressed, op·press·ing, op·press·es

1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.

 

rev·o·lu·tion [rev-uh-loo-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

1.

an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

 

What else is there to say? Are you insinuating that getting rid of an alleged tyrant will increase the tyranny?

 

Your posts make me dizzy with all these circles you are going in.

 

 

In other news, the US Ambassador to Egypt is on CNN right now.

 

EDIT:

Oops. Actually the Egyptian Ambassador to the US.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

The constitution in Egypt was apparently heavily weighted towards Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. That was most likely part of the problem. I don't think it is given that there was a way to peaceably remove him from power.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The constitution in Egypt was apparently heavily weighted towards Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. That was most likely part of the problem. I don't think it is given that there was a way to peaceably remove him from power.

 

Absolutely, and being that Morsi refused to bury his past in the Muslim Brotherhood, his government was exceedingly one sided.

 

Equality, human rights, and caring about the common good of the Egyptian people was non-existent under Morsi. The people want to be treated equally... But that doesn't matter, because they voted Morsi into office. They should have just dealt with his oppression and waited for the next election.

[OSUViking 505]

Didn't he only get like 52% of the popular vote?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

So you do want them to do nothing? Just sit and wait for the next elections? Thank you for talking in circles. It really clears up the confusion you cause.

 

If you can't see how the Egyptian people ridding themselves of an oppressor increases freedom or liberty, there is no hope for you, unfortunately. It's in the very definitions of what is going on here.

 

op·press (-prs)

tr.v. op·pressed, op·press·ing, op·press·es

1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.

 

rev·o·lu·tion [rev-uh-loo-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

1.

an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

 

What else is there to say? Are you insinuating that getting rid of an alleged tyrant will increase the tyranny?

 

Your posts make me dizzy with all these circles you are going in.

 

 

In other news, the US Ambassador to Egypt is on CNN right now.

 

EDIT:

Oops. Actually the Egyptian Ambassador to the US.

 

When the elected official is replaced with a military coup?? Hell yes I think the tyranny can get and will get worse. Why wouldn't I? And you just contradicted your post with the posted definition of revolution, namely "replacement of...political system by the people governed. The people governed didn't do shit. The military did it under the guise of public influence. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. I don't know how to put this into any more elementary terms for you than I already have.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I think its too complex of a situation to put it firmly in a "good or bad" category. I can't fault people for wanting to oust an oppressive government, but at the same time i think this sets a bad precedent that any government that isn't doing a good job (but not in an outright harmful way) should just be overthrown and started from scratch.

 

And of course, how often does the military ruling the country turn out to be a good thing?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

When the elected official is replaced with a military coup?? Hell yes I think the tyranny can get and will get worse. Why wouldn't I? And you just contradicted your post with the posted definition of revolution, namely "replacement of...political system by the people governed. The people governed didn't do shit. The military did it under the guise of public influence. This really isn't a hard concept to grasp. I don't know how to put this into any more elementary terms for you than I already have.

 

You expect regular citizens to go into the office of Mr. Morsi and politely ask him to step down? Do you expect results that way? This is what had to be down to overthrow their oppressor. Plain and simple. They have an interim President in office until they can finally achieve true democracy. Not that joke of a "democratic society" that WE orchestrated, organized, and set into motion.

 

At least you've backed off the "they should do nothing", "they should do everything" argument you were having with yourself.

 

Who would even want Democracy after their first go at it results in achieving goals that are opposite of anything that can be seen as democratic? (Thanks to the USA, btw) It's counter intuitive and had to be done. Let's be thankful they want to correct the mistakes we led them to and form a truly democratic nation instead of reverting back to Egypt of old.

 

Your "just continue to be oppressed until the next elections" is not a suitable solution to the problem.

 

This truly made me laugh out loud however...

 

 

"replacement of...political system by the people governed. The people governed didn't do shit. The military did it under the guise of public influence.

 

You use the definition in the dictionary to try and discredit the dictionary definition. LMAO. This isn't a revolution!!! The people governed influenced the removal of their government, which is exactly what the definition is! It can't be a revolution even though I just proved it was!

 

 

Edited July 5, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

You expect regular citizens to go into the office of Mr. Morsi and politely ask him to step down? Do you expect results that way? This is what had to be down to overthrow their oppressor. Plain and simple. They have an interim President in office until they can finally achieve true democracy. Not that joke of a "democratic society" that WE orchestrated, organized, and set into motion.

 

At least you've backed off the "they should do nothing", "they should do everything" argument you were having with yourself.

 

Who would even want Democracy after their first go at it results in achieving goals that are opposite of anything that can be seen as democratic? (Thanks to the USA, btw) It's counter intuitive and had to be done. Let's be thankful they want to correct the mistakes we led them to and form a truly democratic nation instead of reverting back to Egypt of old.

 

Your "just continue to be oppressed until the next elections" is not a suitable solution to the problem.

 

This truly made me laugh out loud however...

 

 

 

 

You use the definition in the dictionary to try and discredit the dictionary definition. LMAO. This isn't a revolution!!! The people governed influenced the removal of their government, which is exactly what the definition is! It can't be a revolution even though I just proved it was!

 

 

 

I was pointing out the contradiction between the dictionary definition and your employment of it. I'm beginning to question where or not you can read the words I'm typing.

 

By the way, I never said they should "do nothing" nor did I say "wait it out and elect someone new." Those are things you (incorrectly) read into my post while somehow missing my point. And you continue to dodge my initial question with a bunch of bullshit that's completely irrelevant to that question. This is the most asinine argument I've ever participated in, so I'll be taking my leave of it now.

[badgers 380]

You expect regular citizens to go into the office of Mr. Morsi and politely ask him to step down? Do you expect results that way? This is what had to be down to overthrow their oppressor. Plain and simple. They have an interim President in office until they can finally achieve true democracy. Not that joke of a "democratic society" that WE orchestrated, organized, and set into motion.

 

At least you've backed off the "they should do nothing", "they should do everything" argument you were having with yourself.

 

Who would even want Democracy after their first go at it results in achieving goals that are opposite of anything that can be seen as democratic? (Thanks to the USA, btw) It's counter intuitive and had to be done. Let's be thankful they want to correct the mistakes we led them to and form a truly democratic nation instead of reverting back to Egypt of old.

 

Your "just continue to be oppressed until the next elections" is not a suitable solution to the problem.

 

This truly made me laugh out loud however...

 

 

 

 

You use the definition in the dictionary to try and discredit the dictionary definition. LMAO. This isn't a revolution!!! The people governed influenced the removal of their government, which is exactly what the definition is! It can't be a revolution even though I just proved it was!

 

1. He didn't say "sit and wait" he was thinking whether or not Egypt had an impeachment process (or another peaceful way to force the immediate removal of office from their President), which I doubt they do.

2. It's not the Egyptian people it's the military. There's a difference. "Guise" is short for disguise and it doesn't mean that the public influence the military it means the military pretending to fight for the public in order to get what it wants.

 

I'm not trying to defend Morsi but I'm sure there's other terrible people out there to run Egypt. And it's gonna sound really shitty of me to say this but the Egyptians (and this goes for budding nations all over the world) need to figure it out on their own. If it takes a lot of misery, sacrifice, and pain to get there, so be it. The West can try to amicably install a new government all they want but it will never work. The Egyptians have to figure out the right way to run their country on their own. The American model is not a one size fits all.

 

Also I don't think you're really reading his posts. Nobody (at least not Phail) said this wasn't a revolution. He said it wasn't democratic and that this type of revolution was not the revolution you were referring to. You're providing a definition which states "... by the people governed" and all he's trying to say is that the "people" didn't do it, it was the military.

 

And just because Morsi, a tyrannical leader, is disposed of, doesn't make it a good revolution automatically. There could always be somebody worse.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I think its too complex of a situation to put it firmly in a "good or bad" category. I can't fault people for wanting to oust an oppressive government, but at the same time i think this sets a bad precedent that any government that isn't doing a good job (but not in an outright harmful way) should just be overthrown and started from scratch.

 

And of course, how often does the military ruling the country turn out to be a good thing?

 

Historically speaking, has it ever turned out to be a good thing? I don't want to outright claim military coups have always ended poorly but I took a "democracy abroad" course a few years ago and I can't recall off the top of my head if any of the military coups ended well. It's hard to imagine a situation in which a group seizes power (re: illegitimately) then relinquishes it without bloodshed.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I was pointing out the contradiction between the dictionary definition and your employment of it. I'm beginning to question where or not you can read the words I'm typing.

 

By the way, I never said they should "do nothing" nor did I say "wait it out and elect someone new." Those are things you (incorrectly) read into my post while somehow missing my point. And you continue to dodge my initial question with a bunch of bullshit that's completely irrelevant to that question. This is the most asinine argument I've ever participated in, so I'll be taking my leave of it now.

 

You should have taken your leave a long long time ago. It was apparent from the get go with your catch-22 bullshit question that you were outclassed in every fashion of the word.

 

The very essence of these actions are libertarian. Everything about it. Which is what you are failing to grasp. That's why I am giving you elementary definitions... And even though you prefer to nitpick and attempt to disprove the dictionary, you can't deny it in the slightest. The military is supposed to be strong and at the ready to defend it's people and their (natural) borders at any given time. They've done that! They've protected the people they are sworn to protect!

 

People around the world get far to used to the US way of handling the military... Invade everyone, steal their resources, and forget about the homefront. Newsflash... That's the wrong way to go about things. Egypt doesn't want to rule the world, they want freedom and equality.

 

The entire process and fabric of these actions are libertarian.

 

As Blots has pointed out so kindly and accurately... Yes, of course there is the chance the military backs off all of it's promises and keeps absolute power for themselves. There is no way to tell if this is going to happen or not, so I feel it's pretty pointless to discuss beyond the possible hypothetical ramifications. I think those are apparent.

 

However, all we know for sure is what the military has told us they plan to do. To be honest, I am quite intrigued by the possibility of a technocracy. I am not sure if it's going to work or not, nobody does, but it should definitely be interesting.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

1. He didn't say "sit and wait" he was thinking whether or not Egypt had an impeachment process (or another peaceful way to force the immediate removal of office from their President), which I doubt they do.

2. It's not the Egyptian people it's the military. There's a difference. "Guise" is short for disguise and it doesn't mean that the public influence the military it means the military pretending to fight for the public in order to get what it wants.

 

I'm not trying to defend Morsi but I'm sure there's other terrible people out there to run Egypt. And it's gonna sound really shitty of me to say this but the Egyptians (and this goes for budding nations all over the world) need to figure it out on their own. If it takes a lot of misery, sacrifice, and pain to get there, so be it. The West can try to amicably install a new government all they want but it will never work. The Egyptians have to figure out the right way to run their country on their own. The American model is not a one size fits all.

 

Also I don't think you're really reading his posts. Nobody (at least not Phail) said this wasn't a revolution. He said it wasn't democratic and that this type of revolution was not the revolution you were referring to. You're providing a definition which states "... by the people governed" and all he's trying to say is that the "people" didn't do it, it was the military.

 

And just because Morsi, a tyrannical leader, is disposed of, doesn't make it a good revolution automatically. There could always be somebody worse.

 

And you just proved Phail's ignorance. You and he are both acting under the assumption that the military is going to go back on it's word and assume full control over Egypt for the rest of history.

 

A possibility? Surely, as I mentioned above. But to build the foundation of your argument on unsubstantiated ideals and make believe truths is not going to take you anywhere fast. You can't simply make things up and then represent them as fact. The world doesn't work that way, even if the liberals tell you so.

 

What really seems to be the issue here is Phail and yourself by association being largely uneducated on the topic. You're both wildly unaware of anything factual... Phail doesn't even seem to understand why Morsi was taken out of power. He doesn't appear to have read (not even the spark notes version)the military's response or their plans moving forward for Egypt.

 

It was faulty on my behalf to engage in this discussion thinking he had gone out of his way to learn the facts. Again, I shoulder that blame. It was an incorrect assumption on my part, and one I will try to avoid in the future.

 

However, he doesn't help the situation by jumping into an argument on a topic he knows very little and one in which he feels creating his own reality will produce the best results.

 

I don't like attacking the ignorant. I really don't, some people can't help it. I myself haven't even read every shred of information that the media is reporting on the matter. I do not claim to be an expert. But I also don't watch a 30 minute CNN broadcast and claim myself an expert on all things Egypt.

 

Do yourself and everyone else on this board a favor and take the time to educate yourselves on the topic at hand.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

What a fantastic display of delusion.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Your response is all the evidence I need. Thanatos had to explain to you why the overthrow happened in the first place. You weren't and probably still aren't aware of the military address. And I highly doubt you even realize that by disengaging and removing the Muslim Brotherhood from any form of power, the Egyptian people will be far better off.

 

You may feel free to research the Muslim Brotherhood, as I have grown weary of trying to educate you on topics that you know very little.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Faver are you freaking incapable of having a civil conversation? There are so many insults to sift through in your posts they're hardly worth reading. Please debate without throwing out insults every 3rd sentence.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Faver are you freaking incapable of having a civil conversation? There are so many insults to sift through in your posts they're hardly worth reading. Please debate without throwing out insults every 3rd sentence.

How do engage in a civil conversation with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Please, try it sometime.

 

If Phail came in here talking about how he doesn't know much about the situation or the details surrounding the overthrow of Morsi. That's fine... I have no problem discussing that the "democratic" government in Egypt was run by a party of individuals who hate liberty, equality, and freedom for all.

 

It would have truly been that simple.

 

What I can't stand is people who are fake. People who exude a sense of knowledge on a topic but actually know very little to nothing.

 

Don't be fake. Be upfront with what you know and what you don't and I GUARANTEE "civil" conversations. If you want to be a poser, you better bet you are going to get called out on it.

 

EDIT:

 

If you are simply saying that I should be nicer when calling out posers. Touche. I can be brash, absolutely. If you would like to either post here or PM me with suggestions on how to do it more nicely, I would appreciate it and use your suggestions to better myself in the fight against pseudo-intellectuals.

 

Thank you for your help, Thanatos.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[badgers 380]

And you just proved Phail's ignorance. You and he are both acting under the assumption that the military is going to go back on it's word and assume full control over Egypt for the rest of history.

 

A possibility? Surely, as I mentioned above. But to build the foundation of your argument on unsubstantiated ideals and make believe truths is not going to take you anywhere fast. You can't simply make things up and then represent them as fact. The world doesn't work that way, even if the liberals tell you so.

 

What really seems to be the issue here is Phail and yourself by association being largely uneducated on the topic. You're both wildly unaware of anything factual... Phail doesn't even seem to understand why Morsi was taken out of power. He doesn't appear to have read (not even the spark notes version)the military's response or their plans moving forward for Egypt.

 

It was faulty on my behalf to engage in this discussion thinking he had gone out of his way to learn the facts. Again, I shoulder that blame. It was an incorrect assumption on my part, and one I will try to avoid in the future.

 

However, he doesn't help the situation by jumping into an argument on a topic he knows very little and one in which he feels creating his own reality will produce the best results.

 

I don't like attacking the ignorant. I really don't, some people can't help it. I myself haven't even read every shred of information that the media is reporting on the matter. I do not claim to be an expert. But I also don't watch a 30 minute CNN broadcast and claim myself an expert on all things Egypt.

 

Do yourself and everyone else on this board a favor and take the time to educate yourselves on the topic at hand.

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot..

 

But I never made any argument of any kind... I was just pretty sure that you were misunderstanding his posts largely and was trying to clarify. I never made any assumption that the military was going to seize control of Egypt's government... If you're pointing to my #2 point, I was only using that as an example to explain the word "guise" to you. Sorry if that confused you.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I'm not trying to stir the pot..

 

But I never made any argument of any kind... I was just pretty sure that you were misunderstanding his posts largely and was trying to clarify. I never made any assumption that the military was going to seize control of Egypt's government... If you're pointing to my #2 point, I was only using that as an example to explain the word "guise" to you. Sorry if that confused you.

If you understood the topic at hand, I think you would better understand the perspective of the coup / overthrow / whatever you want to call it.

 

Your #2 was definitely FAR from factual and if it was indeed just an example, and not based on what actually happened in Egypt as you say... Then you proved that Phail had no idea what he was talking about. You explaining terms to me in which prove my point are well received, trust me.

 

For that, I thank you. I think he also liked your post, which is pretty funny if you showed him up on a faulty use of terminology.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Looks like the US wasn't as buddy-buddy with Morsi as you thought Favre.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That proves absolutely nothing other than the US Government is horrible -- which we all knew.

 

We did the same exact thing to Mubarak. Did you notice that the statement made by Obama during the overthrow of each ruler was practically identical? Or did you notice that we continually like to threaten to remove our billions of dollars of aid to the country?

 

We sustained Mubarak as long as he ruled, we supported and orchestrated his demise... We help the Muslim brotherhood gain massive political power and get Morsi elected... We support and orchestrate his demise.

 

Nothing's different and I could have told you immediately that we helped remove Morsi from power just like we put him there.

 

You should have just asked.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/cairo-massacre-hundreds-dead-and-national-emergency-declared-as-egyptian-army-opens-gun-fire-on-promorsi-protesters-8760379.html

 

Welp