Great point. I think it will all come down to what the army does in the next few months. I think it is a wrong move to ban the MB because they wont go away as you mentioned, they will come back stronger.
If after putting down the and calming the situation and weakening the MB leaders, freedom and political participation is allowed while ensuring that the constitution does not allow Islamic laws into the government, then they are set.
It is a problem when you have a country that is so into Islam thinking it is the best thing but also wants freedom and having rights. It is oxymoron. Islam and democracy are the opposite of each other. These people want democracy but are unwilling to let go of the chains of Islam that enslaves them.
If after putting down the and calming the situation and weakening the MB leaders, freedom and political participation is allowed while ensuring that the constitution does not allow Islamic laws into the government, then they are set.
It is a problem when you have a country that is so into Islam thinking it is the best thing but also wants freedom and having rights. It is oxymoron. Islam and democracy are the opposite of each other. These people want democracy but are unwilling to let go of the chains of Islam that enslaves them.
The article has two sides/dimension to it. As usual you choose to completely ignore the 1st part of it and latch on to anything that you can, no matter how out of context it is, to advance your argument. Honestly, and I'm not being facetious, you make yourself sound like someone who's struggling with "do do ta char ta" in the process. Let me break down the article for you in very simple math terms:
The article is basically saying that MB was at a strength level of 7 (out of 10) and rising at the time of the "coup". Had they been allowed to continue, they would have been at a strength level of 10 just like the IR (what most of us here have been arguing). The military action in early July reduced them to a strength level of 2 (as such, the article is NOT arguing against the merits of the original military take over, contrary to what you like to make yourself belive). Then it goes on to say that the subsequent crackdown (that's what "such an attack" is referring to) may have reduced them to a strength level of 1 in the short term, but it "MAY" [important keyword] actually strengthen them over time to let's say 3.
So what, you want acknowledgement from us that 1 MAY turn to 3 and 3 is larger than 1 and 2?!!! You got it man, I agree with you 100% that if it goes to 3, that would be larger than 1 and 2. Now, let's see how many more pages, articles, years, revolutions or miracles performed by prophets themselves is going to take to get you to acknowledge that 7 and 10 are larger than 3!!!
The article is basically saying that MB was at a strength level of 7 (out of 10) and rising at the time of the "coup". Had they been allowed to continue, they would have been at a strength level of 10 just like the IR (what most of us here have been arguing). The military action in early July reduced them to a strength level of 2 (as such, the article is NOT arguing against the merits of the original military take over, contrary to what you like to make yourself belive). Then it goes on to say that the subsequent crackdown (that's what "such an attack" is referring to) may have reduced them to a strength level of 1 in the short term, but it "MAY" [important keyword] actually strengthen them over time to let's say 3.
So what, you want acknowledgement from us that 1 MAY turn to 3 and 3 is larger than 1 and 2?!!! You got it man, I agree with you 100% that if it goes to 3, that would be larger than 1 and 2. Now, let's see how many more pages, articles, years, revolutions or miracles performed by prophets themselves is going to take to get you to acknowledge that 7 and 10 are larger than 3!!!
Next thing you know, they will tell you that you can not comprehend english ... wait, they did already, didn't they 
Guess who said the following yesterday?!
"no hesitation or restraint faced with those who by terrorism, anarchy or rebellion carried out attacks on institutions of the state"
If you're too lazy to read the article, the Islamist government of Tunisia! And we have heard similar comments from Morsi and IR, haven't we? But it's an attack on humanity, democracy and innocence if this statement was directed at them!
"no hesitation or restraint faced with those who by terrorism, anarchy or rebellion carried out attacks on institutions of the state"
If you're too lazy to read the article, the Islamist government of Tunisia! And we have heard similar comments from Morsi and IR, haven't we? But it's an attack on humanity, democracy and innocence if this statement was directed at them!
Firstly, in case you did not know, in international relations, the definition of a failed state is something else. IR is more like a system and a regime. I do not accept IR system, though is that is what you mean, since I believe in democracy.
Regarding your argument. I am not sure why you are going round and round and change my position. I do not also remember that I have said IR=MB. Also, I do not see MB as a failed state. Not sure what you mean here with "failed state". However, if you mean MB is acceptable to me, well I have to tell you, that it is absolutely not.
My position has been clear through this argument. That is I am against military intervention. I was from the beginning against it and thought MB should be removed through democratic means.
Regarding your argument. I am not sure why you are going round and round and change my position. I do not also remember that I have said IR=MB. Also, I do not see MB as a failed state. Not sure what you mean here with "failed state". However, if you mean MB is acceptable to me, well I have to tell you, that it is absolutely not.
My position has been clear through this argument. That is I am against military intervention. I was from the beginning against it and thought MB should be removed through democratic means.
The article has two sides/dimension to it. As usual you choose to completely ignore the 1st part of it and latch on to anything that you can, no matter how out of context it is, to advance your argument. Honestly, and I'm not being facetious, you make yourself sound like someone who's struggling with "do do ta char ta" in the process. Let me break down the article for you in very simple math terms:
The article is basically saying that MB was at a strength level of 7 (out of 10) and rising at the time of the "coup". Had they been allowed to continue, they would have been at a strength level of 10 just like the IR (what most of us here have been arguing). The military action in early July reduced them to a strength level of 2 (as such, the article is NOT arguing against the merits of the original military take over, contrary to what you like to make yourself belive). Then it goes on to say that the subsequent crackdown (that's what "such an attack" is referring to) may have reduced them to a strength level of 1 in the short term, but it "MAY" [important keyword] actually strengthen them over time to let's say 3.
So what, you want acknowledgement from us that 1 MAY turn to 3 and 3 is larger than 1 and 2?!!! You got it man, I agree with you 100% that if it goes to 3, that would be larger than 1 and 2. Now, let's see how many more pages, articles, years, revolutions or miracles performed by prophets themselves is going to take to get you to acknowledge that 7 and 10 are larger than 3!!!
The article is basically saying that MB was at a strength level of 7 (out of 10) and rising at the time of the "coup". Had they been allowed to continue, they would have been at a strength level of 10 just like the IR (what most of us here have been arguing). The military action in early July reduced them to a strength level of 2 (as such, the article is NOT arguing against the merits of the original military take over, contrary to what you like to make yourself belive). Then it goes on to say that the subsequent crackdown (that's what "such an attack" is referring to) may have reduced them to a strength level of 1 in the short term, but it "MAY" [important keyword] actually strengthen them over time to let's say 3.
So what, you want acknowledgement from us that 1 MAY turn to 3 and 3 is larger than 1 and 2?!!! You got it man, I agree with you 100% that if it goes to 3, that would be larger than 1 and 2. Now, let's see how many more pages, articles, years, revolutions or miracles performed by prophets themselves is going to take to get you to acknowledge that 7 and 10 are larger than 3!!!
I'm sorry but you are sounding quite ridiculous with your explanation. Just say you didn't read the article but from the title thought it would support your argument; it's way more dignified that way compared to the path you've taken
HAHAHAHAHAHA, Bi-Honar Jan, you got to be careful here ... When it comes to simple logic , our friends here seem to surprisingly lack that elementary level skills that should have been taught to them in grade 5 Next thing you know, they will tell you that you can not comprehend english ... wait, they did already, didn't they
Next thing you know, they will tell you that you can not comprehend english ... wait, they did already, didn't they
Thanks!!
I don't have to say anything, you gave everyone all the proof as to the level of your reading comprehension. They just need to read this article and your understanding of it and judge for themselves Thanks!!
Thanks!!
I am afraid you have to draw the cartoons for our friend here otherwise there is no hope
Honestly, I read the article and I thought it made some dumb arguments. It glosses over the fact that the extremist faction in Iran had already waged a war on every hezb, jonbesh and minority that didn't adhere to their nutty ideology. Even other religiously organized political groups weren't spared, though at least they weren't purged like all the others. It mentions the hostage crisis but then conveniently ignores the important point that the hostage taking highlighted the confrontational intentions of the shia islamists in Iran. This was already a war in many ways.
However, the article's main point is pretty clear. I don't really see all these other "dimensions" in the authors argument.
However, the article's main point is pretty clear. I don't really see all these other "dimensions" in the authors argument.
I agree with you but the war did make a lot of things a whole low easier for certain elements in the regime. It also transformed Sepah (and to some extent Basij) to what it is now both physically, but also mentally, as it gave them a sense of entitlement to the country because of the sacrifices they made in war.
I didn't bring "failed" into the discussion, you did. You said this "coup has failed". So, did you say that just because it sounded good and it did not really signify anything or did you mean that Egypt is or would end up as a failed state?! Because it hasn't really failed in any other way: if you believe this was a coup, it has met all the classic conditions of having succeeded! :doh:
And I suggest you look up what failed state means if you think it has some other mystical or secret meaning in "international relations" than exactly what it denotes - a state that has failed to provide the services or conditions (whether domestically or internationally) that a sovereign government needs to provide.
Sure, I appreciate that. And I asked you several times already to give me ONE, just ONE example of where, when and how in the whole history of mankind an Islamist government was removed through "democratic means". Repeating the same thing over and over without basing it on some historical precedence, doesn't make your argument more compelling, it just makes it seem out of touch with reality. :redface:
Sure, in a perfect utopian world I would agree with you and we wouldn't be having this discussion, but then again none of these events that we are discussing would have even happened in a utopian world in the first place, would they?!
And I suggest you look up what failed state means if you think it has some other mystical or secret meaning in "international relations" than exactly what it denotes - a state that has failed to provide the services or conditions (whether domestically or internationally) that a sovereign government needs to provide.
Sure, I appreciate that. And I asked you several times already to give me ONE, just ONE example of where, when and how in the whole history of mankind an Islamist government was removed through "democratic means". Repeating the same thing over and over without basing it on some historical precedence, doesn't make your argument more compelling, it just makes it seem out of touch with reality. :redface:
Sure, in a perfect utopian world I would agree with you and we wouldn't be having this discussion, but then again none of these events that we are discussing would have even happened in a utopian world in the first place, would they?!
Last edited:
FZ jaan, it didn't gloss over those facts - it made it very clear from the very first sentence that "when Ayatollah Khomeini rode an Islamist wave to create a new republic, mass executions and war with Iraq followed". Then it lays out the reasons for why the military action was justified in the minds of the Egyptians, that "a rushed constitution, fears of a creeping Islamisation of the government, and limited progress on the economy were all cited as driving the resistance to his administration" (all very important factors that have not yet sank in for some of our friends here).
Then it goes on for the next 13 or so paragraphs painting a picture of what another "Islamic revolution" and the "declaration of an Islamic Republic" could have possibly meant for Egypt: "eight years of war, the most extensive use of chemical weaponry in several generations, and hundreds of thousands dead". He continues the parallel between Morsi's Islamization of Egypt to what happened in Iran: "Islamic dress for women was imposed universally the following summer. Bani Sadr was impeached, and all political parties bar the Khomeini-ist Islamic Republican party banned. By the end of 1981, the political leadership [Islamists] that would see out the war had been established".
He's basically suggesting that Morsi was on the same path and had he been allowed to create a conflict, he too would have "distracted from the regime's consolidation and draconian exercise of power; and provided a rally-around-the-flag effect, which the regime [would have] further exploited to facilitate its liquidation of the opposition en masse." Now, our friends want to skip all those 16 or so paragraphs and dozens of references to Islamism and Islamists to suggest that the entire article is in fact talking about the army, not Mosis's government and Islamization of Egypt - not understanding at all, that is the "paradigm" the author decides to "shift a little" in the last two paragraphs!!!
The last two paragraphs are not referring to the initial military take-over or negating everything the author has said up to that point about the dangers of Islamism and Islamization. "The blundering, heavy-handed, and hardly homogenous Muslim Brotherhood that sustained Morsi's presidency" MAY "in the brutality now being visited upon it, find a new cause for unity." In essence, the last two paragraphs are just about the crackdown on the Brotherhood in the last two weeks and are a valid concern. I don't think many would argue that possibility is not there and things MAY not end up that way.
What I would have liked to see instead as a closing, not to confuse subjective or novice readers, would have been to extend the Iranian parallel and what's happening to MB with the same brutality that was visited upon all other Iranian opposition forces in those first 2 to 3 years of the revolution. Did the violent crackdown on the MKO, Hezbe Toudeh, Fadaiyoon Khalg, etc., which was multiples worse than the army crackdown on MB help them unite and come back stronger against the Islamic regime?!
Then it goes on for the next 13 or so paragraphs painting a picture of what another "Islamic revolution" and the "declaration of an Islamic Republic" could have possibly meant for Egypt: "eight years of war, the most extensive use of chemical weaponry in several generations, and hundreds of thousands dead". He continues the parallel between Morsi's Islamization of Egypt to what happened in Iran: "Islamic dress for women was imposed universally the following summer. Bani Sadr was impeached, and all political parties bar the Khomeini-ist Islamic Republican party banned. By the end of 1981, the political leadership [Islamists] that would see out the war had been established".
He's basically suggesting that Morsi was on the same path and had he been allowed to create a conflict, he too would have "distracted from the regime's consolidation and draconian exercise of power; and provided a rally-around-the-flag effect, which the regime [would have] further exploited to facilitate its liquidation of the opposition en masse." Now, our friends want to skip all those 16 or so paragraphs and dozens of references to Islamism and Islamists to suggest that the entire article is in fact talking about the army, not Mosis's government and Islamization of Egypt - not understanding at all, that is the "paradigm" the author decides to "shift a little" in the last two paragraphs!!!
The last two paragraphs are not referring to the initial military take-over or negating everything the author has said up to that point about the dangers of Islamism and Islamization. "The blundering, heavy-handed, and hardly homogenous Muslim Brotherhood that sustained Morsi's presidency" MAY "in the brutality now being visited upon it, find a new cause for unity." In essence, the last two paragraphs are just about the crackdown on the Brotherhood in the last two weeks and are a valid concern. I don't think many would argue that possibility is not there and things MAY not end up that way.
What I would have liked to see instead as a closing, not to confuse subjective or novice readers, would have been to extend the Iranian parallel and what's happening to MB with the same brutality that was visited upon all other Iranian opposition forces in those first 2 to 3 years of the revolution. Did the violent crackdown on the MKO, Hezbe Toudeh, Fadaiyoon Khalg, etc., which was multiples worse than the army crackdown on MB help them unite and come back stronger against the Islamic regime?!
Last edited:
I think by now the only thing that is "clear" is that your "clear" is "clearly" different than everybody else's, save shahin
Dude, the article is not suggesting Morsi would have dragged Egypt where Khomeini dragged Iran. Not that it's unreasonable to say so or that the author thinks differently (who knows?), but because that's not the point of his article. His point is simply that external force (as war) empowered and defined IRI, and the same may happen to Brotherhood. Now take this "subjective and novice" reading of ours to anyone whose intelligence you respect and see what they say.
Dude, the article is not suggesting Morsi would have dragged Egypt where Khomeini dragged Iran. Not that it's unreasonable to say so or that the author thinks differently (who knows?), but because that's not the point of his article. His point is simply that external force (as war) empowered and defined IRI, and the same may happen to Brotherhood. Now take this "subjective and novice" reading of ours to anyone whose intelligence you respect and see what they say.
Sure dude, if you ignore the first 16 paragraphs and all the references to Morsi, Islamists and Islamism, this whole article was referring to the army! And that "shift" that he talks about before those last two paragraphs, as related to the paradigm he set up in the first 80% of the article, is just a figure of speech!
Sure dude, if you ignore the first 16 paragraphs and all the references to Morsi, Islamists and Islamism, this whole article was referring to the army! And that "shift" that he talks about before those last two paragraphs, as related to the paradigm he set up in the first 80% of the article, is just a figure of speech!
Just take it to someone to read it and translate it for you!