Egypt's President calls for a 'religious revolution'

Yea sure, thats really what the world needs, MORE religious BS.

Losing hope for the planet by the hour anymore. People with their nonsense fictional delusions looking to cause even more problems on the planet. *SIGH*.

Unless more speak out in the same manner, nothing will change. Likely he put a target on his head and if he is killed it will be more power to the extremists.

It will eventually come down to one of two things....it will be handled by one of them, but which one is up to the people.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: TheTengriist

Opposing party? Are you talking about the Muslim Brotherhood?

I am, in fact. because, let's be frank; they took a majority in free and fair democratic elections. They governed poorly, no argument, but I'm sure most here could say that about Republicans, Democrats, Tories, whoever. Even an inept democratically-elected government does not warrant a violent military coup, the killing and imprisonment of its leaders, and the wholesale purging of civilians who voiced support for the party, however - or even dissent against the coup itself, even if they opposed the government's direction. Or reported on it.

I hate starting threads, I thought his speech was a positive thing.

I wanted to add it seems like many of these leaders that were gotten rid of during the Islamic spring have a horrible human rights history

a reply to: Stormdancer777

They did, but the chaos in the vacuum they left isn't racking up any wins on that front either. Like it or not, we are talking about brutal people in a brutal part of the world.

a reply to: Shiloh7

With Islam, what you feel isn't really relevant, unless you're a Muslim who plans to do something about it, really. You think anyone in the world cares what i think about, say, Christianity? Nope, except for myself. And since i'm not a christian, what i think about it is pretty meaningless.

Any religion would be "tearing itself apart" in the Middle east right now. if the people between Morocco and India were all Wiccans, we would be seeing the same results - different rhetoric perhaps, but the same results.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

it is. It's just deeply hypocritical and ugly, coming from this particular source. One wonders if he plans to shape his vision of islam by slaughtering more Egyptians until they conform or kill him.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Stormdancer777

They did, but the chaos in the vacuum they left isn't racking up any wins on that front either. Like it or not, we are talking about brutal people in a brutal part of the world.

oh i agree, seems they needed the tyrants

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: Stormdancer777

it is. It's just deeply hypocritical and ugly, coming from this particular source. One wonders if he plans to shape his vision of islam by slaughtering more Egyptians until they conform or kill him.

that is how it works isn't it

originally posted by: gosseyn
Also, he should ask France, the US, UK, etc, NATO, to stop destabilizing the whole region, killing secular non-fanatic Arab nationalists like Kadhafi, even Saddam Hussein and now Bachar El Assad, look at the chaos now, it will take years and years before it goes better.. Hundreds of thousands have already died. Disgusting chaos strategy..

You cant destabilize an unstable thing.

a reply to: TheTengriist

So you're defending the Muslim Brotherhood while demonizing el-Siss?

That's fresh.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s War on Coptic Christians

The Muslim Brotherhood is showing the world its true colors.

The group that “renounced violence” in an effort to gain political power is engaged in a full-scale campaign of terror against Egypt’s Christian minority. Brotherhood leaders have incited their followers to attack Christian homes, shops, schools and churches throughout the country. Samuel Tadros, an Egyptian scholar with the Hudson Institute, told me these attacks are the worst violence against the Coptic Church since the 14th century.

As soon as the MB took power the protests began and never stopped until the MB were removed. In the final days of the MB the protests against them reached record breaking levels, millions upon millions took to the streets and never stopped.

Under their reign life in Egypt was a poor and frustrating one. Combine that with the MB trying to install Sharia Law. The Egyptian military, who were backed by the Gov't, took the MB out of power because the people demanded it.

a reply to: Xeven

I would strongly advise reading more history on the region. Individual nations, if you can. Only two middle eastern nations are what could be called "inherently unstable." Those would be Israel and Lebanon. The rest of the bunch are (or at least were) pretty stable - at least, as stable as most other nations in the world. Three factors have caused the place to crumble; Sykes-Picot, oil money, and cold war politics. What we're looking at now is the aftereffects.

a reply to: Swills

true that too

a reply to: Swills

I will defend any group of six thousand people slaughtered by a military dictator. if a military junta decides to sentence fifteen hundred people to death in sham trials, I'll be on the side of the people so found "guilty." if that Junta arrests and charges reporters with "treason" and "terrorism" for the crime of filming this stuff going down, i'll be on the reporters' sides.

Ethics 101: Two wrongs do not make a right.

a reply to: TheTengriist

Dictator? I don't think so. The Egyptian military has long been a force in Egyptian politics and is always in control when a revolution occurs, see 2011 and present day.

Egyptian presidential election, 2014

A presidential election in Egypt took place between 26 and 28 May 2014. There were only two candidates, former Egyptian Defence Minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Egyptian Popular Current candidate Hamdeen Sabahi.[3] The elections came almost a year after the June 2013 protests that prompted el-Sisi to depose Egypt's then-president Mohamed Morsi in a military-led coup.[3] The elections, which were planned to take place for two days were extended to a third day.[4] Official figures showed 25,578,233 voted in the elections, a turnout of 47.5%, with el-Sisi winning with 23.78 million votes, 96.91%,[1] ten million more votes than former President Mohamed Morsi (who garnered 13 million votes against his opponent in the runoff of the 2012 Egyptian presidential elections).[5][6] The election was held without participation of the Muslim Brotherhood's banned Freedom & Justice Party, which had won every prior post-Mubarak electoral contest.

But speaking of dicators you're so keen to hate...

www.cfr.org...

In winter 2011–2012 parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won nearly half the seats in the lower house (People's Assembly), and Islamists took 84 percent of the seats in the upper house (Shura Council). Pushing back against the Brotherhood's increasing power, in June 2012 the Mubarak-appointed Supreme Constitutional Court dissolved the People's Assembly and revoked a law that would have barred former regime officials from holding office, allowing Mubarak-era prime minister Ahmed Shafiq to vie for the presidency. Following a first round of voting in May, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Morsi won a narrow majority (51.7 percent) in a June runoff against Shafiq.

After his election, Morsi ordered the military, which had been acting as an interim government, to its barracks, a move welcomed by much of the officer corps, which was conscious of growing public resentment during its nearly one-and-a-half years at Egypt's helm.

With the lower house of parliament dissolved, Morsi had both executive and legislative control of the government. In late November 2012, Morsi declared himself, the Shura Council (previously a consultative body without legislative authority), and the constituent assembly immune from judicial review. The move provoked an immediate backlash, including public demonstrations against what opponents called a power grab. Though Morsi argued that the judiciary and much of the bureaucracy was dominated by feloul, or remnants of the Mubarak regime eager to impede the revolution's goals, intense popular opposition led him to annul the decree a month later.

How dictatorial is Egypt's Morsi?

Mohammed Morsi's recent decree, granting himself sweeping legal authority, including temporary immunity to judicial oversight, has sparked fears that Egypt has replaced one dictator with another.

Some critics have even begun calling him a 21st century pharaoh.

"Certainly the powers that he's asserted for himself are total," Eric Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told CBC News.

Morsi had already asserted full executive authority at the outset of his tenure earlier this year and then used his power to reconvene parliament's constitutional assembly in August, Trager observed.

"And now with the latest, he has not only put himself above any judicial oversight but actually declared the authority to pass any law that would advance the revolution, which is such a vague term that it implies unchecked extensive powers."

"So, is he Egypt's dictator? At the moment, yes, on paper the most powerful Egyptian leader since the pharaoh," said Trager who has extensively studied Morsi and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the once-banned Islamist party that he was a member of.

And you are absolutely right, Storm. At face value, it is a good thing.

The complexities of the region, the politics, the ideologies, the "tribes", the varying interpretations! My dear God, it makes one's head spin that it could all go in so many directions at the same time. It's maddening!

If one tried to write it all down and figure it out, the volumes would fill every shelf in every library in the world, and then some. Not sure even then we would have all the answers.

*Of course, everyone on ATS seems to think they have the right answer.

I only wish they could find peace long enough to figure out a way to coexist with others.

a reply to: Swills

Yes, dictator. When you seize power in a military coup, impose yourself as "leader" and then "win" elections with 96.91% of the vote after demonstrate that you kill supporters of opposition parties, you are a dictator.

In 1979, Saddam Hussein seized power from al-Bakr, and called the baath party to council in Baghdad to "discuss" al-Bakr's negotiations to unify Iraq with Syria. During this "discussion," Hussein produced a list, and began reading names from it. As each man was named, military officers loyal to Hussein seized the named man and dragged him out of the locked and guarded building. One by one. Realizing what was going on, members of hte party stood up to sing praises to Hussein. he didn't stop reading, and lots of these men were dragged off with the others. when it was finished, only 1/3 or so of the iriginal assemblage remained in the building. the rest were accused of treason and disposed of in assorted ways.

is this the act of a dictator? A terrible person? Does it matter that these men were Baathists and thus partnersin some pretty heinous stuff as well? How about the fact that the baath party overthrew a inept and corrupt monarchy, does that matter?

I posit that no, it doesn't matter, what Hussein did was a barbaric and grotesque act of despotism.

Unlike al-Sissi, Hussein did not turn his goons on the people of Iraq when he seized power - that came two years later, when he invaded Iran.

You can tell me what a piece of crap Morsi was. And you know what, for the most part I'll agree. This does not justify a bloody coup, and mass murder of people for the crime of voting for the guy's party.

You clearly want a fight, because you keep claiming I "support" or "defend" or "love" or whatever the big bad awful mean terrible Muslim brotherhood, absent my saying anything of the sort.

Is it really that hard for you to understand that killing six thousand people, mostly civilians, and putting another 1,500 on trial for their lives in absentia., while jailing and torturing journalists, is a bad thing and should on no condition be supported by anyone?

a reply to: TheTengriist

While at the same time you don't bring up any of the Muslim Brotherhoods massacres. You make it sounds as if the military were just gunning down innocent people. How one sided of you. Face it, he was elected into office but I'll agree he isn't the answer Egypt is looking for but they're better off without the MB. Every nation suffers the same fate of choosing the lesser of 2 evils, give or take. The MB were considered dictatorial. There aren't protests going on in Egypt right now calling for the outst of their current president. So...

I guess we can just leave this as agreeing to disagree.

a reply to: Swills

Well, because the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the party issuing this proclamation. Fateh al-Sissi is. The Brotherhood is no more relevant to this discussion than King Faroukh. Fatah al-Sissi slaughtered six thousand people, sentenced another fifteen hundred to death in absentia, imprisoned and tortured journalists. And yes, i'm going to presume most of them were innocent people, owing to, you know, the absolute lack of anything resembling a credible trial to prove their guilt of anything. It doesn't matter of the Muslim brotherhood also did awful things, because not only are we talking about Fateh al-Sissi, but again two wrongs do not make a right.

And yeah, the last time there were protests against al-Sissi, he - this bears repeating - killed six thousand people. Two thousand in Cairo alone. I wouldn't blame anyone for not piping up. and are you seriously going to tell me you believe the "96.91% of the vote" thing, Swills? C'mon.

I'm not defending the Muslim brotherhood. However, you are clearly speaking in defense of the slaughter of people whose only "crime" was voting for them, or having a problem with a military overthrow of the first elected government Egypt has had in its history.

You might want to think about that, man.