At the expense of 8 months for 80 million people? I fear his life is now in danger frankly, especially when using such a charged sentence like "I WILL die on Egyptian soil." His speech writer is an idiot.
I think there’s a legitimate move the army could make at this point. They could say that they’re happy that Mubarak has decided to step down, and they agree with his decision, but that they feel the timing needs to be moved up, and therefore they are removing him as of now and appointing an interim leader until the elections take place. I think they pretty clearly have a mandate from the people to do something like this, and it's minimally intrusive given that Mubarak was going anyway. I don't think doing that would change the fact that this has been a peoples' revolution, and not the army's.
My guess is his speech writer is probably himself. He sounds like a cranky old man who felt like he just got thrown under the bus after by his people and foreign allies after what he believes to be years of giving his best efforts serving the country. Whether that's objectively true or not doesn't matter, but that seems to be where he's coming from emotionally. He doesn't feel like he deserves the anger directed at him and suspects some nefarious group (the Muslim Brotherhood?) is manipulating the people against him. As for the expense of 8 months, it depends on what actually happens during this time. I think the idea is that the next 8 months are going to involve a lot of work (legislatively and otherwise) to prepare for a fair and open election, and are not to be an extension of the last 30 years. Obvioulsy people in Egype prefer this happens without Mubarak in office, the same probably applies to the U.S.'s view, too, but maybe they can make it work with Mubarak nominally in office but, of course, not having the kind of power he had in the past. I don't know what will happen... but it seems Amr Moussa find the situation maybe acceptable. Perhaps others will, too, or find some way to negotiate an alternative. We'll see.
Germany the Nazis in 1933. Isn't being an Islamist party (in the sense of the Muslim Brotherhood or the Taliban, etc.) and respecting the constitution mutually exclusive?
Exactly. It's not 1933 anymore. The question is again unclear. A secular constitution won't talk about something as vague as Islamist because the definition can vary greatly. It will talk about the necessary qualifications and the unwanted attributes of a party. It will talk about contraventions of the law or lack of qualifications which may deter someone from running for government positions. It doesn't matter why they did it, it just matters what they did and sometimes what they intended to do. I don't think you can put a blanket word like Islamist out there and expect a concrete answer to your question.
He is not putting a blanket meaning. He cited specific examples. If you feel his question is too vague then answer for the two examples he provided.
[ATW provides example of opposite being true] What exactly is unclear about the question? I am asking if you seriously think a group like the Muslim Brotherhood or the Taliban will respect a secular constitution, let's say one similar to the American or German constitution just as examples (translated to Egypt). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
Something else, Mathloom, why do you keep trying to downplay the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#In_Egypt That is completely different from a tiny fringe group like the NPD in Germany, as you claim it to be. What is your personal interest in pretending they are smaller than they are? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/772/op8.htm
and Mubarak got 99% of the votes. Those numbers are worthless. It's very simple really. I'll clear the confusion up for you. I'm not downplaying their role. I'm just confused as to why you're overplaying their role. Given a decent set of options, it's unlikely that they will have an influential role by the people's choice. Given the influential role of the millitary in all this, and the military dislikes the brotherhood, it's even less likely to happen. As for whether they'd respect a secular constitution, I'd imagine they will do so in order to be able to run for government positions since they will actually have to abide by a constitution. I don't know what past transgressions will affect that. I don't think they would do anything to jeapordize their ability to hold an influetial role. I think the error you're making is that you are joining the brotherhood with al Qaeda and the taliban. The leaders and many members of the brotherhood are highly educated, very "modern" conservatives, with the political goal of becoming influential by playing the political game. This is different to the caveman anarchist style of al qaeda. They are fully aware that a secular constitution can have islamic values without actually being called sharia - something which I think you have neglected to consider. I think that is the route they would try to take, and I'm not opposed to it, as long as the governance structure, standards and the constitution are able to independently scrutinize these attempts. Overall, I wouldn't be worried. Al Azhar has done enough to damage the people's faith in institutional Islam, and Al Azhar graduates have been speaking out about non-progressive forms of Islam for some time now. I would want to give them a chance to run if they are eligible, if for no other reason than to show that they are not wanted by a majority of the people and that they will be treated the same as Christian and Marxist groups.
Their candidates formed the largest opposition bloc. The fact that their candidates got the most votes of anyone from the opposition directly contradicts your repeated claims here. The military disliked the islamist Erdogan as well, yet there has been an islamist takeover in Turkey, which is far from being finished. So you are saying that they would pretend to respect the constitution for tactical reasons, but really have the agenda of pushing Islamist goals, such as restricting women's freedoms, etc. And you are saying you are not opposed to that. I don't see how they should not be given a chance to run, but I am worried about the possible outcome.
hahaha you're such a character honestly. The votes don't matter, they were all marred by corruption. So just like we don't know how much Mubarak REALLY would have gotten, we don't know how much ofthat 20% was attained through influence etc. They were running as independents so Mubaraks hands were sligtly tied. There is no Islamist takeover in Turkey hahaha That's hilarious and extremely German of you. The military is still very much in control of the country, Ottomaton I remember has great knowledge about this. You should read more about the Turkish political system, I think perhaps your confusing loudness with power. I'm not going to answer anymore of those types of questions, you are just being silly now after I've been very clear as to my preference. If somehow you are magically right and the brotherhood becomes influential then I imagine we will hold the Egyptian nation accountable for any unacceptable actions they take against people's freedoms. Just like we would for an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Hindu. Acknowledging religion in the matter, IMO, allows their followers an excuse. If you kill people, you're a murderer, and that's it. If you invade a country, you are an invader and that's it. That's part of secularism, you treat indivisuals the same, and that's why it's incredibly important for the new constitution to be iron clad. There's no reason to think that this is a major possibility. There's no reason to have to have a dictator in place to quell these people, as you seemed to indicate earlier in the thread. There's no reason to care about religion in order to smash the hammer on their heads when they break the law - if the law is well written and fair.
Mubarak "supporters" are fighting with the protesters. According to NPR, they charged the crowd on horseback and camel, causing injuries and absolute chaos in the square. Gee, I wonder where these sudden "supporters" came from?
How exactly is discussing the potential influence of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood after a potential exit of Mubarak from power a derailment of a thread that deals with the potential exit of Mubarak from power and its aftermath? Explain, rhadamanthus.
^^^Great picture. I'd rep you if I could just for that lol. I retract the "derailment" post because I honestly don't give a ****. Not sure why I decided to care since it's so blissfully easy to scroll past the usual ATW-mathloom doldrum. My apologies. EDIT: Cool article on one man's twitter efforts for Egypt news.
There's an interesting IAmA from someone on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/fdqyp/i_cant_believe_what_just_happened_to_me_in_a_week/ He posted his picutres, too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/59057377@N07/sets/72157625960891810/ I feel the following is pertinent to the derailed portion of this thead:
