What's Happening in Egypt Right now

[MizzNaaa]

government is a LOT bigger than one man.

This right there is basically the core of our problems. The government SHOULD be a lot bigger than one man, but it wasn't back in Mubarak's days. Now with Mursi, the government should be bigger than one illegal theocratic and extremist brotherhood but it was. We weren't revolting for the removal of Morsi, we were revolting for the removal of the whole brotherhood who took over the WHOLE government and were actively working to seize all positions of power. They were spreading like a disease in all crucial positions (and non crucial) of power in Egypt.

I fully realize that it's me stooping down to their level when I say they are a disease but that is the truth. They wanted to be the 2nd Mubarak's regime with an islamic flavor. They wanted to be treated like untouchable gods, have all the wealth, money and power they could with no questions asked. It's very difficult to give a clear image of how it was they were ruling Egypt because it would take days and pages and pages of writing to give you a detailed rundown of what they did similar to what Mubarak and his Regime did.

For what it's worth though, that's how it was...they ruled in tyranny and expected us to bend over and wait another thirty years before another revolution (I kid you not that's what they said down to the letter on multiple occasions)>

@Shira

Call me a pessimist, but that article is too 'rainbows and butterflies' for my taste. The truth is, Egypt's got a LONG way before we see any real change. You guys don't fully realize what it's like here. Egypt is drowning in corruption. There is corruption to be found in every nook and cranny. It's systematic corruption that has basically become everything that we are and everything that we do. The change Egypt needs is so fundamental, we literally need to pull everything down from the root for things to change.

Do I think removing the brotherhood and handing it to the technocrat government is going to turn Egypt into a country that upholds the law, ruled by institutes as opposed to individuals where democracy will finally thrive and economy will replenish and we'll finally become a true economical power? Hell no. But it's a step forward.

The amount of setbacks we have faced from outside international influence and interference as well as national and inside interference is monumental. And it's only a fraction of what we are going to face, but so long as we keep fighting, we'll keep moving forward and in many years, maybe not in my lifetime but possibly in my children's, if I ever have any , things will finally be on the right track.

However, to think that changing a government with another is going to change everything is in my humble opinion quite naive. Rooting out corruption so deeply widespread will take time and effort from people who truly believe in this country and her people, and I'm yet to believe that we have found those people. Not the ones we have now, not the ones we had before. The crucial thing to keep in mind, in my humble opinion again, is that we are forcing change. It was a miss in 25th of January, it might well end up being another miss after 30th of June; there are no guarantees that the next government won't be as corrupt and non-revolutionary as the Muslim Brotherhood, but eventually it will happen. So long as people keep fighting for it, it will happen.

That's why we removed the brotherhood, that's why we're still struggling with people supporting the brotherhood. I fully believe it was the right choice and the right decision, but doesn't guarantee good change any time soon.

tl;dr:

Removing the brotherhood was a good move, but that doesn't mean that the revolution is over or that things are good and well. It will take time. Long time.

 

[Sophia Maria]

Call me a pessimist, but that article is too 'rainbows and butterflies' for my taste. The truth is, Egypt's got a LONG way before we see any real change. You guys don't fully realize what it's like here. Egypt is drowning in corruption. There is corruption to be found in every nook and cranny. It's systematic corruption that has basically become everything that we are and everything that we do. The change Egypt needs is so fundamental, we literally need to pull everything down from the root for things to change.

I agree, only because I try not to look at these things from an idealistic standpoint. That's why I got annoyed at all the "Woohoo! Arab Spring!" articles, because many articles written by the American media wrote it as if the revolutions and protests were a wonderful, inevitable transition into some sort of American democratic system. When I say that I am optimistic about the situation, I mean that I think Egypt and other countries in turmoil will eventually reach some sort of compromise that will keep more people in the country happy, not that they will achieve a perfectly functioning democracy.

What worries me, though, (this is coming from my pessimistic side) is that in most countries the most severe and deep issues are never really resolved. I hope Egypt can adjust the system so that corruption is perhaps less easy or convenient, but I'm not sure that there wouldn't be a corruption problem. I feel like what I see to be the most fundamental problems in countries that I am more familiar with...never really entirely go away.

Where does the Brotherhood stand now?

 

[Safran]

As much as I understand the Brotherhood is continuing its protests, mainly in Cairo, the cities in the delta and North Sinai. And I fear that tomorrow (Friday) the other side will also come onto the streets, so there is no knowing how bad the situation gets.

 

[khanjar]

However, to think that changing a government with another is going to change everything is in my humble opinion quite naive.

Yes, you are correct where perhaps us of established democracies are naive because every few years we elect a new government believing there will be change where we find there never is in real terms, everything more or less stays the same and so every few years we invariably change the government fed up with the last and their broken promises, when it could be what is, is that is the way it is and it can't be changed because what is is too deeply rooted and protected because it benefits a powerful minority and money so far talks much louder than ideals where undoubtedly there is corruption or as we say it in the UK brown envelopes passing under tables, someone is receiving a bung because corruption exists in our democracies as well.

But to remember some wise words spoken by a visionary, US founding father, a bastion of democracy ;

Where the people fear their government there is tyranny and where a government fears it's people there is democracy - Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third US president.

Money always corrupts

 

[MizzNaaa]

As much as I understand the Brotherhood is continuing its protests, mainly in Cairo, the cities in the delta and North Sinai. And I fear that tomorrow (Friday) the other side will also come onto the streets, so there is no knowing how bad the situation gets.

Especially after the army declared that if the people give their consent, they'll clamp down on terrorism that's been happening around here. I'm not sure how to feel about that yet.

 

[khanjar]

Especially after the army declared that if the people give their consent, they'll clamp down on terrorism that's been happening around here. I'm not sure how to feel about that yet.

Be careful of that one, that is how people authorise their own oppression...


For that ploy is well known and many western governments are engaged in it via providing us with a threat they can guard us against if we ask them to where it always erodes our civil liberties in the process. It's the price we have to pay to feel safe until the next threat erodes that safe thus requiring more erosion of civil liberties to feel safe and of course authority is as ever obliging because authority gets what it wants which is more power over the populace.


But be aware so called terrorist actions might not be coming from where they look like they are coming from and the choice of language used, watch out for the emotive.

For always remember mean men desire power and they will stop at nothing to get it.

But the astute in Egypt can if they look learn from the world's mistakes to create a better society and I do understand the animosity towards the US the usual scapegoat, for reasons fair and foul, but a lot of good thought for a better future can be garnered from the formative years of the USA for people as mentioned above Jefferson being one of them of the founding fathers did not want the US to become what so many had escaped from for those founding fathers were well educated in the failure of nations and so the bill of rights to protect the citizen from the excesses of government backed up with fire power, which is probably bows and arrows against the lightning that government can bring to bear on it's people, but people that are not helpless tend to have fight in them and government have to exist on the world stage these days.

The only thing I never understood was why the Pilgrim fathers escaping religious oppression in England as soon as they landed in Newfoundland they subjected the indigenous to the very same they had left Britain to escape, but there is a lesson in that somewhere.

 

[Sophia Maria]

Especially after the army declared that if the people give their consent, they'll clamp down on terrorism that's been happening around here. I'm not sure how to feel about that yet.

...That doesn't sound very confidence-inspiring. Clamp down? What specifically would they be given permission to do? The thing that makes me uneasy about the situation in the first place is that the military is now a political actor. What happens after that?

 

[Tiziri]

...That doesn't sound very confidence-inspiring. Clamp down? What specifically would they be given permission to do? The thing that makes me uneasy about the situation in the first place is that the military is now a political actor. What happens after that?

"Clamping down on terrorism" doesn't sound very confidence-inspiring. When the people's right to protest is only extended to some of the people, it's not a good sign. The people protesting Morsi's removal are Egyptians, also; they too are "the people" even if they're not necessarily everyone's favorite people (as a collective, for whatever they stand for in people's estimation). I imagine that many of them aren't "radical" and from their perspective, there is a legitimate gripe: the removal of an elected president (however gormless and corrupt) by an army that still has associations with the old guard (then again, wasn't it the army-led coup in 1952 that outlawed the MB?) I have to question what is being done to a pretty large and, I imagine, diverse group of citizens. They can't ALL just be fanatic thugs. If the intent is to contain any radicalization, adding fuel to those flames by treating these people wholesale as presumptive terrorists is not going to help. I don't like the look of the plans to "clear" the protests. I worry about vague, over-broad promises to "clamp down on terrorism"; in other places, that has meant a whole lot of questionable acts and even atrocities, and a lot of lies and cover-ups. It sounds like the population is becoming very polarized.

I'm still not sold on the idea of military takeover to "preserve democracy." It's not got a lot of good precedent. There has got to be a better way than this.

ED: I missed this:

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.

I would be concerned about the US military acting politically on behalf of "the people", in large part because military structure and protocol IS NOT democratic in any sense, and the military upper echelon are invariably members of the prevailing power elite. I'd wonder what "people" they're acting for. One of the robust points of the US system is the "checks and balances", which is awesome, although sometimes infuriating. If *any* one group has "the power" (and in this case, the military is really supposed to be subordinate to the Big Three in that system), that's when abuse happens. I'd rather stick with messy plurality; even if there are people I think have some really messed-up ideology, I don't want them to have absolutely no voice in the system, or more precisely to have their voice suppressed. That way oppression lies, and oppression brews revolt. Not to mention I don't think ends justify bad means.

 

[Yame]

"Clamping down on terrorism" doesn't sound very confidence-inspiring. When the people's right to protest is only extended to some of the people, it's not a good sign. The people protesting Morsi's removal are Egyptians, also; they too are "the people" even if they're not necessarily everyone's favorite people (as a collective, for whatever they stand for in people's estimation). I imagine that many of them aren't "radical" and from their perspective, there is a legitimate gripe: the removal of an elected president (however gormless and corrupt) by an army that still has associations with the old guard (then again, wasn't it the army-led coup in 1952 that outlawed the MB?) I have to question what is being done to a pretty large and, I imagine, diverse group of citizens. They can't ALL just be fanatic thugs. If the intent is to contain any radicalization, adding fuel to those flames by treating these people wholesale as presumptive terrorists is not going to help. I don't like the look of the plans to "clear" the protests. I worry about vague, over-broad promises to "clamp down on terrorism"; in other places, that has meant a whole lot of questionable acts and even atrocities, and a lot of lies and cover-ups. It sounds like the population is becoming very polarized.

I'm still not sold on the idea of military takeover to "preserve democracy." It's not got a lot of good precedent. There has got to be a better way than this.

ED: I missed this:


I would be concerned about the US military acting politically on behalf of "the people", in large part because military structure and protocol IS NOT democratic in any sense, and the military upper echelon are invariably members of the prevailing power elite. I'd wonder what "people" they're acting for. One of the robust points of the US system is the "checks and balances", which is awesome, although sometimes infuriating. If *any* one group has "the power" (and in this case, the military is really supposed to be subordinate to the Big Three in that system), that's when abuse happens. I'd rather stick with messy plurality; even if there are people I think have some really messed-up ideology, I don't want them to have absolutely no voice in the system, or more precisely to have their voice suppressed. That way oppression lies, and oppression brews revolt. Not to mention I don't think ends justify bad means.

Very well said. This is exactly my concern... I'm very worried about this situation, but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

MizzNaaa, do you have an email address I can PM you at? I don't want to do it through this board because the PM limit is so low now.

 

[MizzNaaa]

Here's the thing, I myself right now am at a point where I am starting to realize that I personally was fooled. The military is pretty much ruling the country behind a democratic cover. There's more to their interference than meets the eye. I have so many question marks right now, it's not even funny anymore.

Why is El-Sisi speaking instead of the democratic president? Why is he asking people to take to the streets so they could deal with terrorism? Isn't that their job in the first place? When has terrorism become unanimous with the Muslim Brotherhood? Don't get me wrong, I don't condone anything the MB are doing in any way, but people were fighting and killing each other in El Manial and many other places and the army stood there and did nothing to stop it, resulting in something around 20 people dead from both sides; MB supporters and opposition. Yet, now you say you want to deal with terrorism and restore order? Everything is pointing towards the one truth I wanted to be a lie so badly; the Armed forces are ruling Egypt...again.

From everything I'm seeing right now, it seems that the reason this 'revolution' happened on June 30th, is because the Armed forces wanted the MB gone. On its own, it's not a bad thing that the MB is gone, but why now? What is it the armed forces are playing at?

Most importantly (and the most depressing too) all that's happening right now is completely ignoring the real problems and again, people are distracted by the golden halo the army painted around its own head to appear as saints in the eyes of Egyptians who don't like the MB. When in truth, we have issues, real ones to deal with. Things like corruption, failing economy, lack of social justice, corrupt educational system that doesn't actually educate people and many more.

The reason why this revolution happened back in 25th of Jan was to avoid a hunger revolution, to try and fix things before it's too late and before thousands of lives are lost after hitting the point of no return. Sadly though, how things are right now, everything is indicating that going that route is inevitable. It will take years, decades maybe before Egypt rises again from the ashes pretty much, and I'm sitting here watching it all happen and helpless in stopping it.

Right now if you poke one person and tell them "Hey, maybe this is not right guys, maybe...maybe the armed forces aren't the good guys you think they are" you'll get crucified. I'm just sitting shaking my head and wondering what's gonna become of us next.

This sounds extremely selfish and self centered, but I'm 20, almost 21. I'm just starting my life. I haven't even graduated yet, but I will soon... and this is what I have waiting for me. How am I supposed to build a life for myself like this? How am I supposed to find a job and function normally in a place where everything is failing and those who have the power can't (or don't want to) fix it?

I don't know anymore guys, I'm just depressed right now.

Yame, I'll pm you my email.

 

[Shanazel]

I'll carry you in my heart and thoughts, my dear. Wish I could do more.

The only thing I never understood was why the Pilgrim fathers escaping religious oppression in England as soon as they landed in Newfoundland they subjected the indigenous to the very same they had left Britain to escape, but there is a lesson in that somewhere.

The Pilgrims only wanted religious freedom for themselves. Anyone who disagreed with the head honchos was de trop not to mention anathema and stigmatized. Perhaps the lesson is "organized religion is not a democracy."

 

[MizzNaaa]

Yame, I can't PM you the email, it says you have exceeded your PM quota and have to remove some messages before you can receive more

 

[Yame]

Yame, I can't PM you the email, it says you have exceeded your PM quota and have to remove some messages before you can receive more

email me at yameyameyame@hotmail.com

 

[Tiziri]

I'll carry you in my heart and thoughts, my dear. Wish I could do more.

I was going to offer my own thoughts and prayers for the people of Egypt, but couldn't word it well. You've said it better than I could have. I do wish there were more we could do.

The Pilgrims only wanted religious freedom for themselves. Anyone who disagreed with the head honchos was de trop not to mention anathema and stigmatized. Perhaps the lesson is "organized religion is not a democracy."

The "escaping religious persecution" thing with the Pilgrims is a bit of a myth anyway. They were separatists whose goal was to have a society under their rules, which, due to the fact that they were uncompromising fundamentalists and fundamentalism doesn't have much appeal to the average person, they couldn't do back home. They actually tried it out in Holland first. Didn't work out, unsurprisingly.

 

[Safran]

Ramadan is going to end this week, and that gets me a bit scared... I mean, everyone around here (Sharm)is really excited about eid, but the celebrations can also give anyone wanting to cause trouble a very good excuse :S

 

[Aniseteph]

Terrible news coming in from Cairo right now - how is this a helpful reaction to protest? Are you OK MizzNaaa?

 

[MizzNaaa]

Warning for Language use: No, just no That sums up how i feel about what's happening in Egypt.

It's corruption, fighting corruption supported by corruption. And we're the victims of it all. So yeah.

 

[Yame]

Warning for Language use: No, just no That sums up how i feel about what's happening in Egypt.

It's corruption, fighting corruption supported by corruption. And we're the victims of it all. So yeah.

It's what I feared... that the army would use the people's insatisfaction with Morsi's rule to get back in power, using violence to oppress the opposition.

Wednesday was the deadliest day for Egypt, in decades...

My heart is heavy from the loss of life and the fear about the future of Egypt.

 

[Tiziri]

Horrified, sad, and disgusted at what is happening. I really can't convey it better than that. Does no one ever learn? What does it take to get it to sink into people's heads?

This is looking a lot like Algeria in the 90s. Is that what people want? A decade-plus of horror and atrocity? Someone must want precisely this, because there seems to be a drive to make that happen.

Those words -- horrified, sad, disgusted -- are also my feelings about a lot of the reporting of this in the West, and more so the reactions many people are having to that reporting (comments, commentary, things you hear). Apparently it's all A-OK by many people's lights for people to be slaughtered by repressive governments as long as they're Muslims (read: "radicals," by default), brown, or both. It's especially A-OK if they're both. The US spent decades, as policy, propping up the most repressive, power-mad regimes because they weren't Communist. Sure! They have jails full of tortured dissidents, but they're not pinkos! Now, of course it's "Islamic." As long as it's a government (of a Muslim-majority country) saying they're secular, they're the Good Guys. I'd really like someone to explain to me how a repressive regime which enforces a "secular" policy is so much better than a repressive theocracy. And yet, not only do governments support this kind of thing in the name of kneejerk secularity, but I also hear individuals do it all the time, without stopping to think about what they're endorsing and why.

This is going to happen, and keep happening, and the world will twiddle its thumbs. BTW, all the shillyshallying at not calling it a coup (when you know, by any definition it was, even if it HAD been good)? The US government did that because actually calling it a coup would have, by policy, suspended military aid to Egypt, and that was not wanted. The slaughter you see is partly funded by American tax dollars. I apologize for ranting. I just don't understand how anyone can see this and not, in the name of all that is decent, want the slaughter of human beings to stop, even if it means their governments taking steps to not support it.

 

[Sirène]

This is going to happen, and keep happening, and the world will twiddle its thumbs. BTW, all the shillyshallying at not calling it a coup (when you know, by any definition it was, even if it HAD been good)? The US government did that because actually calling it a coup would have, by policy, suspended military aid to Egypt, and that was not wanted. The slaughter you see is partly funded by American tax dollars. I apologize for ranting. I just don't understand how anyone can see this and not, in the name of all that is decent, want the slaughter of human beings to stop, even if it means their governments taking steps to not support it.

Simply put, because the US government values US security over democracy or human rights elsewhere. In fact, the US Government has been guilty of suspending the civil rights of US citizens, on US soil, in the name of 'fighting terrorism', so I really don't see it renouncing its association with the Egyptian military since the relationship provides strategic access to the Mid-East theater during times of war. Harsh, but true. I think there are people, even among the higher-ups, that would prefer to 'win hearts' by building hospitals, schools and improving infrastructure, but if that's not an option, then they will do whatever they consider necessary to make sure US interests are protected. It's cold and calculating, but it's how it works.

If Americans want the administration to do more than "cancel a joint military exercise", we're going to have to get vocal about it and make it something that affects them directly: let politicians know that US foreign policy in the Middle East will influence our vote in the upcoming election cycle. 2013 may not be a presidential election year, but those aiming for a Senate seat in 2014 have already begun preparations— they're listening, not necessarily because they care about human rights, but because they want us to put a check next to their name before we pull the lever in November.