Three-strikes policy: Egypt military fires AGAIN on unarmed civilians and now reporters.

the whole region is a mess.

I mean, the MB is getting a lot of heat from Wahhabis and Salafis, it's just like the indoctrinated being called out by the more indoctrinated.

those dudes, as much as I dislike the MB, are even worse from a political standpoint.

with that said, I'm certainly not advocating anybody shoot them en masse! I just---deliving into a bit of the s**t I was referring to again, with the complex position of America in the region, and the reality of oil driving this century---realize why dealing with these people is crucial, and including them in the world community may be a positive. Yet, as much as MB is undesireable from a Western liberal point of view, Wahhabis should be even more so---yet we tolerate certain sects of their thinking, and include them in important global policy debates implicitly. There has to be a give and take, and it has to be driven by more than just the groups we regard as acceptable because of oil money.

 

The Brotherhood theoretically renounced violence a while ago.

Whether or not individual members do, or whether or not communications behind-the-scenes is different, may be true, but the organization as a whole doesn't justify violence through Islam.

Regardless, those who commit blatant violence and justify it later are to be held in utter contempt. This includes the Egyptian military that have committed violence, and the Muslim Brotherhood protesters who have committed violence.

 

That's more realistic than my hard idealistic line, and it's something reasonable that could be done (and should be done).

 

http://www.cfr.org/egypt/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/p23991

 

http://www.cfr.org/egypt/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/p23991

Please note the difference between the Egyptian founding Muslim Brotherhood and the various chains, and the difference between individual endorsement of violence, and collective endorsements of violence.

You are, after all, so very good at distingueshing the difference between when an "Islamist" is shot vs anyone else, and at worming around to condemning overwrought violence against Islamists, so I expect you are up to this task.

The individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood who are burning churches are to be condemned. If the Muslim Brotherhood as a whole is calling to burn churches, even behind the scenes, this is unforgivable. However, let's not just apply labels like terrorist and justify atrocities, and assume this is the case, because we have a biased analysis of events on the ground.

 

What I am trying to say is that bigtexxx's analysis is simplistic, and ignores several factors, most importantly the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't try to justify violence. They may commit it, but they're not justifying it through Islam, at the very least. That's usually what happens when you come into an argument, and offer an off-the-cuff remark that's somewhat divergent from the original thread topic.

My debates with you are confined to whatever thing you choose to highlight to try to launch a personal insult---in this case my riposte to texxx that really had nothing to do with you---they merely serve to highlight whatever ridicolous combination of epithets you have in your mind, as well as your inability to square up with your personal biases in large and complex issues.

nothing really personal though, man, though you try awfully hard to make it so (I personally have no idea why). I find your debating style particularily unproductive, but I'm sure you're an okay guy to have a beer with when you're not talking about Islam.

 

Here's the inherent difference between our positions, which are similar in many respects.

I wouldn't EVER beg for a coup, even if Westboro had won an election.

However, using your scenario, I'd work as hard as possible to get him impeached, up to protesting Congress daily, standing in front of SCOTUS and shouting at their negligent asses to condemn the President, to working with whomever to get the guy out of power---within political or outside political channels, without having to resort to the military though.

yes, Egypt is more complex and not at all at the stage where some of these basic concepts and tools could be used, and yes I realize I am very idealistic, and the comparision is not perfect, but I'm using what was given to me, and applying my spin so you can perhaps better understand my point of view on this subject.

How do you handle this kind of action from a new leader that is supposed to set precedents for such a long long period of time?

From my point of view (and I was thinking about it for quite a while actually), nascent democracies should really have something like a vest, and a cliff. Right, so I'm very heavily involved in startup culture at the moment (an occupational hazard) so these concepts fit naturally to me just because I'm immersed in them so often, but it seems to really make sense.

A vest being that there should be an impartial technocratic council appointed to craft the country, with powers gradually being assigned to said elected leaders. This is similar to founders being vested their equity as the years go by on a time-based foundation.

A cliff being a said designated period of time where it's clear that this is a trial, and if said leader rocks the boat, he's out. This is similar to a period of time where new founders can expect to get no equity until they've proved themselves. Set a vest over four years, and a cliff in one, and transition power from a council of technocrats gradually to elected officers as democratic concepts profilirate among the people, without having one group having all that much control for x reason. Then rinse and repeat with a second election, then a third, until the nation gets it.

...my two cents on what seems to be the difference between your position (acceptance of drastic solutions outside of conventional policy channels to counter the consequence of unstable democracies headed by sometimes nascent leaders inexperienced with democratic principles) with mine (non-acceptance of drastic solutions outside of conventional policy policy channels, and a strict, some might say idealistic verge to working within it).

 

sigh.

Let me walk it through with you. Hold my hand.

Listen:
1-Individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood commit violence.
2-Individual members may justify it to themselves for why they are committing violence.
3-However, the movement as a whole has "repudiated" violence in Egypt, and certainly does not use Islam to justify violence in Egypt, because they recognize that at least on the front-end basis, they cannot justify violence in Egypt. Thus why they have repidiated violence as a movement, and why their spokespeople will call on peaceful protests rather than violent protests they can "justify through Islam".
4-To therefore claim that the despicable part of the Muslim Brotherhood is that they justify violence through Islam is patently untrue. They do not defend violence on an organizational level in Egypt.
5-Whether this holds behind-the-scenes may be a valid line of inquiry, but for all we have seen and the public actions of the Brotherhood AS AN ORGANIZATION, they have called on their members to act peacefully, and certainly don't try to justify violence in the name of Islam. Whether INDIVIDUAL members who commit violence heed them is another fact entirely.

In any case, I have condemned several times the violence perpetuated by groups of Muslim Brotherhood individuals. I have yet to see the same condemnation for the original topic of this thread, but then again, I suppose the time spent demonizing the MB is well-spent for people who have to justify these killings somehow to square it with their world-view.

 

see post above

I realize I should have elaborated that individual members may commit violence, but that the collective group does not try to justify it, but I thought I made that abundantly clear in my discourse. of course, I'd bump up against some dude who spends his time highlighting my posts to lob personal insults.

As it is, I hope we can have a civil discussion, and you both understand the points presented, though I must remind you both that this strays from the topic at hand, and really, that personal insults (referring more to ATW) are not very nice.