So Thucy justifies the murder of the population by the military government because they didn't like what the duly elected government does?

Yeah, Thucy, it is pretty fucking simply, cut and dry. The ELECTED government was thrown out in a violent military coup, because the elected government was too "authoritarian" and the new, military government shoots people that protest in the streets (which is the same action that brought about "democracy", mind you, which you no doubt praised).

You can't wiggle out of this one with your nuanced "you are just too stupid to see the bigger picture" bullshit. So democracy is good, until a leader does something we don't like, and then a violent coup is called for. By that logic, there is no such thing as democracy - you totally disregard the rule of law, totally disregard the idea of being **responsible for you actions**...i.e. the peole voted for someone, they should live with him for a term of office and vote smarter teh next time. THAT is how democracy works.

Suggesting for even a second that the coup is justified invalidates the very idea of democracy. What bold, intelligent is going to put HIS head on the chopping block the next election if he knows one mis-step will put him in front of the firing line? Because that’s the message…have all the elections you want…but if you piss off the general, OFF WITH YOUR HEAD! That’s no democracy…it’s just another sham puppet authoritarian regime..and your too stupid to see it. I’m shocked…

"Sadly no one with any influence seemed to notice this blatently obvious problem. "

That's because we were leading from behind, if you recall. We encouraged countries with no practical knowledge of Democracy to have revolutions and install democracies...but we didn't want to get our hands dirty in the process...so we shouted our yahoos from afar...Obama *tried* to take credit...and now that the shit is blowing up we scratch our heads in wonder...and dickhead apologists like Thucy hmmmm and hawwww and try to say everything is OK while blood flows in the street...

How many Coptic Christains are there in Egypt and can we put them all up?

@ fulhamish

Rather a lot. A fair bit more than twice the population of Wales. And they're a weird bunch, even for Christians.

From the beginning the coup was a huge set back in US credibility regardless of what degree the US was involved or not. But lets face it, the administration had to have known about it before hand.

The whole thing is throw back to cold war support of military dictatorships. Sorta undermines the whole support for democracy charade.

"People do recall the major anti-Morsi protests in June right?"

Funny, because in America we pride ourselves for the right to peacefully protest…but rarely have I seen the military come out after a protest and drag the President off and throw him in prison and then shoot the protestors, no matter how bad the President or how wrong his policies.

So…you think Americans are sophisticated enough to protest..but you seem to tacitly accept that if an Arab protests, it must lead to violence. In all honesty, that’s just blatantly racist.

"How many Coptic Christains are there in Egypt " Fewer today than yesterday...and fewer still tomorrow...but, you know...this is so difficult...it might be the best thing in the long run...

This 'democracy' everyone keeps speaking of isn't the sacred thing it's being treated as. If, as everyone is pointing out, Egypt has no real experience with democracy then how do we know for sure the elections were any good? Overall turnout was apparently 54%, hardly representative. The Egyptian courts ruled that the election was unconstitutional, with the Muslim Brotherhood being the primary beneficiary of the irregularities. The 'democracy' that existed briefly doesn't sound like it was anything like it.

Obviously, the above events could have all sorts of motivations, agendas and the like behind them. The point is that it's not as if they had a perfect election where Morsi was clearly the favourite of most Egyptians and the evil army has come in and ruined it all. Slaughtering civilians is never acceptable. That doesn't mean things are as simple as 'elected government overthrown by army, grrrr'.

I don't make any claims about the sophistication of Americans with regard to protests. Also, nowhere have I said that if an Arab protests it must lead to violence. I'm not sure what you're attacking here. I was just pointing out that Morsi wasn't some sort of nationally loved leader.

Alright krellin time to roll out Godwin's Law to demonstrate the simplicity of your views:

Hitler was democratically elected.

Copts speak a language directly descended from Egypt of antiquity. Muslims choose to speak the language of the invader.

My opinion? The f-ing arab loving muslims need to leave egypt and to live in the desert of arabia.

But the real point is. My sentiments don't really matter because americans shouldn't be deciding what happens in egypt.

As for the Copts so for the Berbers.

Yeah, so Hitler was never elected Chancellor: http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/

Egypt is a bit of a tragedy right now. I do wonder, if the army had stayed their hand for 2 more years, the govt would have been very unpopular, and got defeated at the next elections. By stepping in early they've weakened their hand.
But I do so why they did it - Morsi was pursuing a fairly (by western standards anyway) extreme agenda.

The Germany/Hitler example is interesting. He did indeed get democratically elected, and then on a surge of popularity, and terrorising his opponents, managed to ensure his powers got extended further & further until it was a democracy no more...

"But I do so why they did it - Morsi was pursuing a fairly (by western standards anyway) extreme agenda"
- not as extreme as our good allies Saudi Arabia, or Qatar, or Oman, or UAE, etc, etc

@TOgilvie --- You know Thucy will just ignore your pesky little FACTS and move on about his business. Thucy's Super Power is Obliviousness to Facts, he is Impervious to Data that negatively affects his beliefs. Good try....but I fear you will fail....but you see where he must go to support his *fucked up* ideas...

Lol Nigee.. get your head out of your ass, bro.

Okay, point conceded on Hitler. Point not conceded on democracy.

Hamas was elected. Mugabe was elected. Etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23719573

Eyewitness claims of Brotherhood shooting. It is implied in this case that they fired first after receiving a warning to disperse.

Don't concede the point on Hitler, Thucydides. You were doing so well on this thread. The Nazis won over 40% of the vote in the March 1933 election and were in first place with over 100 seats more than the next party, the good old SPD. By the standard of any parliamentary system the Nazis won the election, and a coalition government with Hitler as Chancellor was the inevitable outcome. I'm surprised I even have to say this, but Chancellor is just what the Germans call their Prime Minister. Of course the individual is never personally elected. But when people voted for the Nazi candidate in their Kreis they knew it was a vote for Hitler to be leader.


As for Egypt, I regret nothing of what I said. Morsi was a dictator himself, and a theocratic one at that. Given the choice, the military is the preferable option, particularly where American interests are concerned. That does not excuse the horrendous abuses carried out by the military over the past few days. At the same time, it's not as if the Muslim Brotherhood are a bunch of saints. It's them who are doing things like burning Coptic churches and trying to impose sharia on society, and the unpopularity of their ideology is what made the overthrow of Morsi possible in the first place.

Having said all that, it looks like Egypt is in for a sustained period of unrest between secular forces and Islamist forces. The danger was never that the Muslim Brotherhood would turn Egypt into a theocratic state like Iran. The cradle of Arab socialism would never accept that. The danger, now realized, was that they would try and the resistance to such a move would lead to long-term instability. We may be at that point now. I doubt Egypt will become the East Lebanon patch of hell that Syria has, but the country will not go back to normal anytime soon.

So....even conceding the point (which I don't) that Hitler was elected (he wasn't - se did not secure enough votes to win...therefore)...the idiotic notion of saying Democracy is flawed because of Hitler is...well...

So let's explore Thucy's preferred alternative...the MIlitary Coup and subsequent violent authoritarian rule. I'll put your Hilter up again...shall we start listing off all the Military coups and subsequent violent dictators/authoritarian governments that result? Thucy., you are so wise in the ways of your research...so I will ask you now to demonstrate a little bit of Intellectual INtegrity (I know...a difficult task for you, indeed...)

Start listing for me the history of Military coups and resulting authoritarian governments and their general treatment of civies -- in particular, as you have pointed out the bad egg of Democracy, I want you to focus and explain the bad eggs of military dictatorships....let's see if you have a shred of decency and honesty in you.

I'll be waiting for your honest answer....*not* holding my breath...

Looking into it a bit more, the Weimar Republic used proportional representation with party lists that applied to the whole country. Therefore there weren't Kreise like in Germany today where people vote twice: once for the candidate and once for a party. I did know that at one point (one of my degrees is in German) but it slipped my mind. At any rate, my point about Hitler being democratically elected is still sound. The Enabling Act wasn't even illegal as such, since under Weimar an unconstitutional law was allowed as long as it had the support of 2/3 of the Reichstag. Anyone who argues Hitler wasn't democratically elected and legally gained power doesn't really know what they're talking about.

krellin, what's with the hard-on for the Muslim Brotherhood? One election does not democracy make, and Morsi was doing everything in his (extensive) power to make himself into a new Mubarak. It's not like the Danish military overthrew the government in Copenhagen, this was a coup against an authoritarian would-be-theocratic government hemorrhaging popular support. Egypt has had nothing but a series of bad and less-bad choices going back even onto Nasser. This is just the latest iteration.

Just because Thucydides thinks something doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

"So....even conceding the point (which I don't) that Hitler was elected (he wasn't - se did not secure enough votes to win...therefore)..."

He didn't win a majority, no. But neither did David Cameron. Or Stephen Harper two out of three times. Or Angela Merkel! Were they not elected?

Still, hitler aside, there is the current day problem of muslim majority democracy. Can muslims live in a democracy and respect religious/ethnic/political minorities?

Yes. Look at Indonesia or Turkey. Or the many African countries with sizable Muslim populations which are well on their way to becoming firm liberal democracies, such as Senegal. The problem are Salafi movements which reject any form of government besides theocratic rule. In this ideology even legislatures are illegitimate. Man cannot makes laws to govern himself, since only God can make law through the Koran. This is a widespread interpretation and needs to be opposed.

And no response from krellin. How do you like that?

Invi - was not ignoring things, I was out to dinner and movies with the family last night, and busy this morning. That being said, I have not read the responses other than your last directed.question...and frankly I am birds with the pointless discussion at this point and .most likely will not respond. Sorry...perhaps another day or another thread.

Birds...BORED. stupid phone...