What's Happening in Egypt Right now

khanjar

New member
I don't trust the BBC home service, they are establishment through and through and so my news is gleaned from other places such as RT, Press TV, Al Jazeera English and CNN where I will also take from the BBC world service as it is a bit different from what those at home are fed.

But from observing such news outlets I find it interesting to read the comments were comments are invited where there is an overwhelming condemnation aimed at the US, Britain and Israel for most that's going wrong in the Middle East, where true those countries are known for influencing what perhaps should not be influenced through their foreign policy, but of the influenced, they have to accept fifty percent of the blame because they took the money, where they didn't have to, but poor nations do. But is it all the afore mentioned's fault or is it Britain America and Israel just come in for the default flak because it is traditional to blame the Imperialistic which then perhaps goes on to motivate the anti western mentality that the militant need to get their jollies.

But whatever, but what one has to understand is one does not win hearts and minds by making enemies of people who are not their enemy for what government does is rarely ever the will of the people but government and there government policy can be influenced through emotion and so why our little war monger is saying britain has to be practical in it's approach to the current situation for the safety of British citizens and '' interests '' in Egypt.

But emotion is a powerful tool it can cause change beyond any sense of practicality and so one wonders at the media who is pulling their strings for the media being the unofficial public educator is not without agenda and so everything a country beyond those in the know understands is what the media says it is whether that knowledge is accurate or not for they very much lead the blind.

Me, I seek world peace and prosperity because I believe it can be had through people being happy as happiness is a motivator of prosperity and so of what goes on in the world in terms of what is reported by those that make money or derive political other from what is news I employ the old adage ;

Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see ......and that through doing what I do with the news outlets I use where I know what we get fed at home most often supports our government's stance, which might not be my stance given they did not have my support to gain power.

But of news coming out of the region, all hail the personal blog where what the media says can be tested and there judged.
 

Yame

New member
Uhm, no one is blaming the US for the MB winning. We are blaming the US for being so utterly unashamed about supporting dictatorships here, so long as these dictatorships work to defend US interests in the area, which both Mubarak and the MB did.

We KNOW why the Muslim Brotherhood won; whether these reasons ever made it to your media is another thing. But we know the reasons why they won and I could explain them here but that would take a looong series of posts.
Every single day I see a discussion online about Egypt and every single time, someone from Egypt will mention this conspiracy theory about the US having been responsible for putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power. That is simply not what happened.

Are we talking about the people or the government? Because when we speak about the US we speak of the government not the citizens. Your government was not at all opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood winning or 'unhappy' about it, because the MB vowed to keep US interests untouched in the area.
I am talking about both. The US was EXTREMELY concerned about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood winning. Some American people but especially the American government. That concern was certainly assuaged once our government was able to maintain an alliance with Egypt via its new leaders, once Morsi held up his end of the stick regarding American (and Israeli) interests, but that is something that happened after, not before the Brotherhood won.

That is a VERY misinformed statement. The one thing people were worried about from day one was THAT. In particular. It wasn't just the US worried about the MB coming to power...frankly, I think the US was more concerned about how to make sure that whoever comes to power is an ally than WHO comes to power. So no, you saying that we were so busy revolting that we didn't look at the future is simply inaccurate.
Of course the US was more concerned about how to make sure whoever comes to power is an ally as opposed to who would come to power. Would you expect any country to behave differently?

But no, I don't think it's inaccurate to say Egypt was too busy revolting to look at the future. I wish I had saved all the internet discussions I read, and all the TV interviews I saw with Egyptian protesters back in 2011 so you could see exactly what I am talking about. The answer to the question of "what happens now?" or "who should lead Egypt" was always "we will worry about that after we take down Mubarak." Does that mean this is how all of Egypt was thinking? Of course not. But enough people out in the streets and their supporters were thinking that, for it to be the image that was being put out.

People aren't annoyed at the US and the UK because we think the US is the reason Morsi won. We are annoyed because the US, the UK and the western media is trying to portray what the majority of the people wanted as a Military power grab/coup and an evil death of democracy and legitimacy blah blah blah, when what we did is what Democracy is ALL ABOUT.
You're speaking for yourself there. Again, I've seen enough Egyptians complain about the US being the reason Morsi won. This is what I was responding to in my post. If you think these people are just being ignorant, then we in agreement.
 

khanjar

New member
That is the good thing about the internet, what is put on it is there forever and so can be found and presented when it is expedient to do so, that being if it should happen the attacked get fed up with being attacked with what is not theirs to bear they can dig up the internet past and present the attackers with their past.

How much of all this meddling in other people's lives is because of oil and the petro dollar?
 

Tiziri

New member
I've said this elsewhere, and I couldn't possibly suggest what Egyptians should or should not do about anything as a body politic...but I can't come up with a single instance when the military of a nation has taken power -- for whatever stated purpose -- which has ultimately led to a favorable outcome for the nation in question.

Just in the very recent past, and in the general geographical area, the Malian military staged a coup. That led to a vacuum wherein the MNLA took l'Azawad, and then AQIM and its affiliates swooped in out of their desert hideyholes, and it's still not clear what's next. Back a little further, 1992: Algerian military coup to prevent the FIS (a fundamentalist party) from taking control after the election. Led to 10 years of the Dirty War.

Even if both had elements unique to that country's geopolitical situation, there are things they have in common that affect the region's geopolitics that could play into what's happening in Egypt. There's a myriad of other military takeovers the world over. I'm asking -- can anyone think of any time the military of a nation has taken control that's ended well? I honestly can't, but maybe I've not dug deep enough. That disturbs me as far as the future of Egypt is concerned.
 

Safran

New member
I am currently in Egypt, but far from the capital and the main turmoil, and it is really hard to get a full picture of what is going on. The Western media is portraying things completely differently from what hear from local sources - Egyptians and expats living here (and these opinions and bits of information also vary very differently depending on where the people come from). So basically, we just try to continue life as usual and hope that the worst won't happen. So far, life in Sharm is more or less the same- the only difference is a sudden disappearance of tourists and a great increase of Egyptian flags around (for example, every tannoura-dancer now incorporates a flag into their routine, it is amazing...)
 

Darshiva

Moderator
I've said this elsewhere, and I couldn't possibly suggest what Egyptians should or should not do about anything as a body politic...but I can't come up with a single instance when the military of a nation has taken power -- for whatever stated purpose -- which has ultimately led to a favorable outcome for the nation in question.

I'm pretty sure that both France and the USA got their democracies with the help of the army. ;)
 

Tiziri

New member
Not the same thing at all. Neither involved the military as an extant branch of an established government deposing the government. By definition military is hierarchical and authoritarian and those at the top are going to be part of the pre-existing power elite.

The French Revolution was not led by the army; the French army pre-Revolution mostly had officers of the aristocratic class. For the most part they either emigrated when the trouble started or went to the guillotine, leaving mostly low-ranking junior officers in charge (Napoleon, for one). The army was basically re-built. American soldiers were not a pre-existing army, nor part of the established state. Nor were they looking to depose the king of England and install a new English government; they were seeking autonomy. I also wouldn't say that the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution, at least, would be a good example of things going well, happily, and democratically.

"By definition military is hierarchical and authoritarian and those at the top are going to be part of the pre-existing power elite." Now that I've said it, I expect that's why military takeovers tend to go as they do. However *this* one goes ultimately, whatever you may call it, there has been a historical pattern to this I can't think of exceptions to -- maybe one exists, but France and the US aren't them. And yes...it sometimes takes years of low points for anyone to know the outcome, as it did in France.
 

Darshiva

Moderator
Ignoring western media, neither was the Egyptian one. From what I've read from eye-witness accounts (and EVERYONE I know who's been in Egypt for the last month or so has said exactly the same thing so I'm NOT just taking MizzNaaa's word for it) the only difference between what's happening in Egypt and what happened in France & the US is that the latter were overthrowing rule by monarchy.
 

khanjar

New member
I am currently in Egypt, but far from the capital and the main turmoil, and it is really hard to get a full picture of what is going on. The Western media is portraying things completely differently from what hear from local sources - Egyptians and expats living here (and these opinions and bits of information also vary very differently depending on where the people come from). So basically, we just try to continue life as usual and hope that the worst won't happen. So far, life in Sharm is more or less the same- the only difference is a sudden disappearance of tourists and a great increase of Egyptian flags around (for example, every tannoura-dancer now incorporates a flag into their routine, it is amazing...)

There's a surprise- not for you see what western media is reporting is what western authority wants reported for all news is political and to think, if the truth was actually told mean men in power might have reason to fear for their their futures, but then again if everyone knew what the media reported was basically half truths and lies the truth would never be recognised for what it is and so mean men could sleep easily.

But expats in my family and their attitude on this is to keep a closer eye on what is happening in your vicinity as the vicinity is precise where as world news is way too general and often wrong.
 

khanjar

New member
Not the same thing at all. Neither involved the military as an extant branch of an established government deposing the government. By definition military is hierarchical and authoritarian and those at the top are going to be part of the pre-existing power elite.

The French Revolution was not led by the army; the French army pre-Revolution mostly had officers of the aristocratic class. For the most part they either emigrated when the trouble started or went to the guillotine, leaving mostly low-ranking junior officers in charge (Napoleon, for one). The army was basically re-built. American soldiers were not a pre-existing army, nor part of the established state. Nor were they looking to depose the king of England and install a new English government; they were seeking autonomy. I also wouldn't say that the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution, at least, would be a good example of things going well, happily, and democratically.

"By definition military is hierarchical and authoritarian and those at the top are going to be part of the pre-existing power elite." Now that I've said it, I expect that's why military takeovers tend to go as they do. However *this* one goes ultimately, whatever you may call it, there has been a historical pattern to this I can't think of exceptions to -- maybe one exists, but France and the US aren't them. And yes...it sometimes takes years of low points for anyone to know the outcome, as it did in France.

And so, take the US for example if anything ever went pear shaped in that country who would be ruling the roost, citizen, government or military and would the military be right if they acted on behalf of the citizen or should the military just keep out of it which would be hard given what the military is made up of.
 

Tiziri

New member
Ignoring western media, neither was the Egyptian one. From what I've read from eye-witness accounts (and EVERYONE I know who's been in Egypt for the last month or so has said exactly the same thing so I'm NOT just taking MizzNaaa's word for it) the only difference between what's happening in Egypt and what happened in France & the US is that the latter were overthrowing rule by monarchy.
I'm not really seeing how they are comparable as parallel historical events as they occurred to what is occurring in Egypt (they're not even really parallel to each other, nor was the other major revolution of the era, the Haitian Revolution), even if the military's role in this turns out to be entirely positive (which I'm inferring is what you're alluding to -- that this is all positive. That may be, but they aren't parallel events.) And again, neither revolution was due to governmental overthrow by a professional army and "Overthrowing rule by monarchy" is probably too broad a brush.

And France's Revolution had the appropriately-named Reign of Terror in its aftermath, which lasted, I believe, until Napoleon took power. Revolutions do tend to have periods of great instability in their wake (maybe the US could be considered an exception. Possibly some Latin American countries. Haiti definitely was not, so it's not a matter of revolutions against oppressive colonial powers...and looking at 20th century revolutions against colonial powers, it's a very mixed bag. Nevermind the Russian or Chinese Revolutions.) It's the period immediately after the revolution occurs -- like here -- where things become most fragile, and it takes time. THAT's what worries me. But like anyone else, I only hope for the best possible outcome in what amounts to a period of creating a new system of governance.

But now this is digressive, all this history. Forgive me -- I tend to digress on historical points.:)

ETA: Factchecking the Reign of Terror, am I misreading and are you suggesting that this is where the parallel with the French Revolution lies -- the ideological division of groups (that led to the Reign of Terror)? Because I could see that as a similarity, the ideological division of groups in the government.
 
Last edited:

Erik

New member
MizzNaaa, on the day this happened my Internet connection failed, and I did not hear about it until two days later. My connection was restored about twelve hours ago. Thanks for this thread. For those who accept the possibility of such things, I have a much more favorable impression of this revolution than of the one in 2010. That one had me absolutely stricken with panic. I can't possibly say enough nice things about the Egyptian Army, so if it's all right I would simply like to say God bless them. And I'm hoping it will be a game-changer for my country. Egyptians have proven that free will can make a difference. Those who would keep my country in misery and poverty are not Muslims. They are Marxists, and they control the US Presidency and Senate. They try very hard to appear as champions of the people but they are nothing more than a gang of power-hungry monsters, and I'm pleased to say that more Americans lately are seeing them for what they really are. Hopefully a bunch of them will be shown the door in next year's election.

Thanks again for sharing this information. I hope we can think of you as "Our Woman in Cairo." :D
 
Last edited:

Sophia Maria

New member
Bottom line, they have done exactly what Mubarak had been doing and the opposite of what most of the people (those of us who did not support the radical bullshit of the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Muslim movements)

Question: weren't the previous elections democratic? Wasn't that the point, ousting Mubarak and then holding democratic elections? If the majority voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, how can you say they don't support them? I understand that one does not always get what one voted for--I don't think the majority of Americans expected drone attacks and surveillance to go up under President Obama's administration. But at the same time, one can't be oblivious of the person/group one is electing. You get what you vote for.

And regardless of your opinion on the military taking the Muslim Brotherhood out of power (I haven't come to an opinion myself), isn't the definition of a "coup" a military removing a leader from power?
 

MizzNaaa

New member
Question: weren't the previous elections democratic? Wasn't that the point, ousting Mubarak and then holding democratic elections? If the majority voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, how can you say they don't support them? I understand that one does not always get what one voted for--I don't think the majority of Americans expected drone attacks and surveillance to go up under President Obama's administration. But at the same time, one can't be oblivious of the person/group one is electing. You get what you vote for.

And regardless of your opinion on the military taking the Muslim Brotherhood out of power (I haven't come to an opinion myself), isn't the definition of a "coup" a military removing a leader from power?

Democracy isn't just elections. The same people who voted for Morsi turned against him after a year of his rule due to the havoc he wreaked in the country along with his brotherhood. Yes, he was voted democratically, he was also asked to leave democratically after 22 mil signed petitions against him and he and his backers chose to completely ignore that fact and act like we didn't exist. So, we revolted.

As for your second question, I clearly explained that part in my post. If by coup you mean a military stepping in and helping the people remove the person in power, then yes, it's a coup. But a coup usually implies the military stepping in, removing the person in power from power and taking over, aka seizing power for themselves. That didn't happen, the military did what we asked for down to the letter. and by WE I mean the people who took to the streets and signed the Rebel petition.

So by the common definition of a coup, no it's not, because the military took the president (most) of the people didn't want off of his position, and gave it to the supreme constitutional court.
 

Yame

New member
Hi MizzNaaa, how's everything in Egypt right now? I heard that the situation with power outages, lack of police, etc has improved, but how are tensions between Morsi supporters and the rest of Egypt? Has there been any additional violence recently? Do you feel safe right now, in comparison to before 6/30/13, during, and immediately after it? Or do you feel things are getting more dangerous? I see a lot of reports of counter-protests asking Morsi to be reinstated, and of violence ensuing, with casualties... but I know that however true these reports may be, they do not offer insight into the big picture, so I'd like to know how you feel about everything that happening right now.

How are the prospects for another election looking?
 

Safran

New member
I am in Cairo now, and two days ago I witnessed the brotherhood protest march. I was out at a Nile-side cafe with fiends, when a terrible noise started. There were a lot of people marching on the streets, chanting, fireing shots, throwing rocks and shoes (!). As I was trying to keep a very low profile, I can not say whether the protesters had started the violence themselves, or they were provoced by bystanders. Yesterday's news was that 5 people got killed in the course of action... We were a bit scared that the protesters would enter the place we were sitting at, but it went well... all that got damaged were my nerves and the car that we had came with, which was parked on the street :(
 

shiradotnet

Well-known member
For those of you who use Twitter, here are some journalists and other people whom I find useful to follow for current events news in Egypt:

@OperationEgypt
@Nervana_1
@Reem_Abdellatif
@ahramonline
@OpAntiSH
@TahrirBodyguard
@EgyptWomen2011
@WaelNawara
@RawyaRageh
@Repent11
@BellyLorna
 

Sophia Maria

New member
As for your second question, I clearly explained that part in my post. If by coup you mean a military stepping in and helping the people remove the person in power, then yes, it's a coup. But a coup usually implies the military stepping in, removing the person in power from power and taking over, aka seizing power for themselves. That didn't happen, the military did what we asked for down to the letter. and by WE I mean the people who took to the streets and signed the Rebel petition.

So by the common definition of a coup, no it's not, because the military took the president (most) of the people didn't want off of his position, and gave it to the supreme constitutional court.

Fair enough. I won't argue the point, the discussion might just devolve into a discussion of semantics. Coup or not, if it needed to be done, it needed to be done.

My concern is more along the lines of: what does changing a president actually do for a country? I heard that there were a lot of problems in Egypt during Morsi's term; can all those problems be traced back to Morsi? Is the problem more with Morsi or with the Muslim Brotherhood? And if removing Morsi is the right thing to do, what about the rest of the bureaucracy of the Egyptian government? I'm not trying to belittle the concerns of the Egyptians that protested Morsi's leadership; if the majority of Egyptians wanted him out, it's their country and they can do that...I'm just saying, government is a LOT bigger than one man. I suppose one can only hope that ousting Morsi is a step in the right direction. This is why I am such a cynic when elections come around in the U.S.A., my own country. I'm afraid that many Americans place way too much faith and expectation in one man(/woman) to address national problems, when it's actually more complicated. And I think it's something that people the world over tend to do.

I could rant and rant, but I don't know as much about Egypt as I want, and I will probably say something wrong and make a fool of myself. Bottom line is, whether one would call this a coup or not, I am ever the optimist and believe that Egypt will eventually figure this out. (As much as any country can figure this stuff out :) ).

I'm still coming to visit one day ;)
 
Top