Will Egyptians become the 1st country to successfully reject Islamism?!

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
Emblem of Akhavan ol Muslemin of Egypt:

View attachment 36027
Motori joon, baa ejaazeh: Be in heyvoonaa esmeshoon "Ekhvan" hast. Ekhvaan ol moslemin. I agree with everything you said in your post btw. In countries like Egypt or Turkey, a secular army is actually guarding the last pieces of a civil society while if you open up everything, those radical moslems make use of the so call democratic system, takeover the country and get rid of the same democratic system that helped them get to power. This is clear like day light. I just dont understand how some people refuse to recognize it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

feyenoord

Bench Warmer
Aug 23, 2005
1,706
0
LOL. Okay buddy, I'm having difficulty justifying my stance! I know you don't like facts and numbers and everything is based on your perception of what is violent and who's getting killed, so no point comparing the number of deaths and injuries in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions or removal of Mursi.

And what does the length of rule have anything to do with heeding to the calls of the people at the moment of a revolution?! Unfortunately, you're VERY uninformed about what happened in these countries, including the fact the Mursi refused to accept a political transition for months before the army take-over, so statements of facts (and generally numbers) look like nonsense to you.
Mmmm, no. Yes I am uniformed about the theories you have invented in the past few months; theories and concepts that have been absent from international law,political science, and international relations till now. If you mean those, yes absolutely I am uniformed and want to stay so.

Point I was trying to make was that Shah refused for thirty fucking years to accept dissent, let alone political change. He became a totalitarian dictator and had all institutions under his rule wheres in Egypt things did not go that way.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
Point I was trying to make was that Shah refused for thirty fucking years to accept dissent, let alone political change. He became a totalitarian dictator and had all institutions under his rule wheres in Egypt things did not go that way.
So you're suggesting that the Egyptians should have waited 30 years for things to go that way before they had another revolution just so that hardcore denialists like you would be satisfied that things did indeed go that way?! WOW.


Mmmm, no. Yes I am uniformed about the theories you have invented in the past few months; theories and concepts that have been absent from international law,political science, and international relations till now. If you mean those, yes absolutely I am uniformed and want to stay so.
No man, you just struggle with VERY VERY SIMPLE concepts like someone who shows autocratic tendencies from the start is not going to become democratic, not tomorrow and not in 30 years. And you're so thick-headed you absolutely refuse to accept these simple concepts, otherwise you would have found ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE in the whole history of mankind where that simple concept did not hold true and offered it to back up your argument 40 pages ago!
 

feyenoord

Bench Warmer
Aug 23, 2005
1,706
0
Bi-honar;1060683]So you're suggesting that the Egyptians should have waited 30 years for things to go that way before they had another revolution just so that hardcore denialists like you would be satisfied that things did indeed go that way?! WOW.
No I did not. I think both of us can understand the difference in process of what just happened in Tunisia and what happened in Egypt. Simple. Civil resistance vs coup.

No man, you just struggle with VERY VERY SIMPLE concepts like someone who shows autocratic tendencies from the start is not going to become democratic, not tomorrow and not in 30 years. And you're so thick-headed you absolutely refuse to accept these simple concepts, otherwise you would have found ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE in the whole history of mankind where that simple concept did not hold true and offered it to back up your argument 40 pages ago!
No I dont. Yes an example of your own concept is the Egyptian army. Anyway, I am not going into this game of yours of accusing me of having said something like: someone who shows autocratic tendencies from the start is going to become democratic. No! Rather than to force them out of power or by the means of elections, referendum or whatever. By keeping up to putting pressure. And please do not come with that argument of " you are naive, we have seen the risks of that in Iran". Well, the truth is that Iran has had a very different situation that Egypt and that is on many many levels. You CANNOT compare the two revolutions and the aftermath with each other.
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
No I did not. I think both of us can understand the difference in process of what just happened in Tunisia and what happened in Egypt. Simple. Civil resistance vs coup. .
But you don't seem to understand what that difference is. In one case (Tunisia) the ruling party stepped down voluntarily (as did Ben Ali, Mubarak, the Shah and most communist parties in Eastern Europe) and in the other case (Mursi) the ruling party said the hell with the majority, we're going to hold on to power at any cost (like Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam or the IR).

And this direct relationship between the level of violence in an uprising and the unwillingness of the ruling party to accept a political transition or change plays itself out over and over again, as it's doing now in Ukraine and Thailand, whether you wish to understand, acknowledge or accept it.


No I dont. Yes an example of your own concept is the Egyptian army. Anyway, I am not going into this game of yours of accusing me of having said something like: someone who shows autocratic tendencies from the start is going to become democratic. No! Rather than to force them out of power or by the means of elections, referendum or whatever. By keeping up to putting pressure. And please do not come with that argument of " you are naive, we have seen the risks of that in Iran". Well, the truth is that Iran has had a very different situation that Egypt and that is on many many levels. You CANNOT compare the two revolutions and the aftermath with each other.
Like I said, you're struggling with some simple concepts, in this case "cause and effect". The army was NOT the cause of Mursi's removal, rather the army's removal of Mursi was the effect of a leader who was showing not only autocratic but Islamist tendencies, ruining the economy and trampling over the rights of a VERY large percentage of the population.

And that's the other simple concept you are still struggling with. The masses aren't interested in your fairy tale "democratization process" - hell they don't even know what that means (not that I do even after reading pages and pages of your haphazard arguments). The masses are more concerned about putting bread on the table and if a secular autocratic rule will improve their chances of that most basic human need - the need to survive - then they will take it over a bunch of Islamist baboons talking about democracy in their sermons while they ruin the economy and destroy their country.

Egyptians learnt that very quickly and I don't think many of them have grand delusions of a fairy tale democratic process at this point. For now, They've happily accepted a stable secular dictatorship over an Islamist state of ruin, which is where they felt their country was headed under Mursi and I commend them for that as do the majority of intellectuals in the region including our own - even those who actually helped establish an Islamist state in Iran in 1978 or helped it flourish afterward. Given the hindsight that they have now, none of them is stupid enough to think they embarked on a 50 year path to democratization, even if their pride prevents them from admitting how stupid they were not to have noticed it sooner.

But I guess some of us refuse to wake up from the dream world in which Iran is currently on a path to democracy. At best, Iran's on a path to becoming the next Saudi Arabia and at worst on a path to a wide regional conflict, dissolution and complete ruin.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
I do too. However, saying it is a dangerous thing as it can justify the rule of military dictators. In Egypt for example the military has interest in ruling the country.
No argument in the rest of your post. Most of them have indeed element of violence in their ideology.
Question: would prefer in today's Iran, military (secular) rule?
It depends what are my options. If I'm supposed to pick between Islamic Republic in its present form in Iran or a secular military rule I would definitely vote for the latter.

can you imagine Inquisition in 21st century? That is what Amr beh Maa'roof and Nahy az Monker is. At least you can count on military rule to be temporary.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
At least you can count on military rule to be temporary.
Only if they are of the American variety. Eastern Block was effectively ruled by the military for 40 years with no sign of let up until the demise of their master. The one thing American allies should fear the most are the guilt-ridden American politicians on the left who believe America, and its allies, are the problem in the world and must be cut to size.
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
My 2 Cents
In order to have a democracy in places like Iran or Egypt....a couple of important pieces need to be in place.
First - All must understand a democracy does not mean the rule of majority......a foundation needs to be established which would not be up for vote or debates. Such foundation must include basic human rights and must protect the rights of the minority.
Second - there must be a system in place to assure clean and fair elctions.

None of them exist in Egypt or in Iran. So I too will go with the rule of the armed forces until such time the above two elements are in place.

BTW - Feynord - having seen what has happened in Egypt......do you still consider the 28 Mordad so called coup as a bad thing?
 
May 9, 2004
15,166
179
My 2 Cents
In order to have a democracy in places like Iran or Egypt....a couple of important pieces need to be in place.
First - All must understand a democracy does not mean the rule of majority......a foundation needs to be established which would not be up for vote or debates. Such foundation must include basic human rights and must protect the rights of the minority.
Second - there must be a system in place to assure clean and fair elctions.

None of them exist in Egypt or in Iran. So I too will go with the rule of the armed forces until such time the above two elements are in place.

BTW - Feynord - having seen what has happened in Egypt......do you still consider the 28 Mordad so called coup as a bad thing?
جناب مسعود
انقلاب دوم مصر مردمی بود دها ملیون نفر از مردم مصر بر علیه مرسی قیام کردند
وقتی ملیونها نفر از همین هایی که بده از یکسال به خیابانها ریختند و بر علیه مرسی شعار دادند او را انتخاب کردن چون رقیب او شفیق نخست وزیر مبارک بود
بعد که مرسی دستوری جدید را می خواست به بقیه تحمیل کند بسیاری از انهایی که به او رای داده بودند بر علیه او به خیابانها ریختند
سران انها اشکارا گفتند که اگر ارتش در مقابل مردم بایستد بر علیه ارتش شعار خواهند داد
این اولین باری بود در تاریخ مصر بعد از فاروق که ارتش دید ممکن است منبوذ شود
کودتای ژنرال زاهدی مردمی بنود
حال انکه ژنرال سیسی در پی قیام دها ملیون مصری بر علیه مرسی مجبور شد که او را به زور کنار بزند
هر چند که الان که خود را کاندید کرده فرقی با بقیه کودتاچیان ندارد ولی باز این را باید در نظر گرفت که الان ژنرال سیسی پر طرفدارترین فرد در مصر است
مردم مصر در همین یکسال از دست اخوان المسلمین به ستوه امدند
دخالت های مستقیم قطر در سیاست های خارجی مصر باعث تضعیف اخوان وجبهه گیری بسیاری از همان هایی شد که در انتخابات به مرسی رای داده بودند
مرسی با مصدق زمین تا اسمان فرق می کرد
زاهدی با سیسی زمین تا اسمان فرق می کنند
قیام دها ملیون نفر با اشوب صدها چماق بدست فرق می کند
 

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
BTW - Feynord - having seen what has happened in Egypt......do you still consider the 28 Mordad so called coup as a bad thing?
Massoud injaasho kharaab kardi refigh. 28 Mordaad kojaa, jaryaane mesr kojaa? 28 Mordad zedde khaasteye mellat baa komake CIA o MI6 ye mosht chaaghoo kesh o chomaagh bedast oftaadan too khiaaboon mardom ro zadan o motefarregh kardan. Zaahedi ro az suiss aavordan iran, kessi ke yek khalaafkaar bood va daadgaahi shode bood loool. 28 Mordaad yeki az kasif tarin rooz haaye taarikhe novine in mamlekat bood chon Mossadegh shakhsiati bood bad az modathaa taghriban hame haazer boodan baahaash kenaar biaan. Mossadegh badbakht hattaa nagoft shah nabaashe, goft, ishoon biaad shah baashe vali ye shahe modern bashe, be majles ekhtiaaraati ro ke tebghe ghaanoone mashrooteh baayad daade sho ro bedeh. Hamin. Vali az in aadam mitarsidan. Boro khaateraate President Truman ro bekhoon. Khaste shode bood az daste delegation ingilisi haa. Migoft rooz o shab delegation mifrestan mishinan poshte dare office azam mikhaan Mossadegh ro barkenaar konam. Truman vali damesh garm hichvaght inkaar ro nakard. Be ingilisi haa chand baar goft, age shomaa mossadegh ro nemikhaain khodetoon berin ye fekri be haalesh bokonin. Maa dekhaalat nemionim. Motasefaane Truman raft o oon khaar kosse Eisenhower oomad kaari ro ke Truman haazer be anjaamesh nashod ro anjaam daad.
 
Aug 27, 2005
8,688
0
Band e 209
Motori joon, baa ejaazeh: Be in heyvoonaa esmeshoon "Ekhvan" hast. Ekhvaan ol moslemin. I agree with everything you said in your post btw. In countries like Egypt or Turkey, a secular army is actually guarding the last pieces of a civil society while if you open up everything, those radical moslems make use of the so call democratic system, takeover the country and get rid of the same democratic system that helped them get to power. This is clear like day light. I just dont understand how some people refuse to recognize it.
china joon

Mamnoon az tazzakor. Baayad khedmatet arz konam man hamoontour keh maa beh Farsi tallafoz mikonim spell kardam, va ellaa khod arabhaa beh Engelisi baa I spell mikonan mes e Ikhwan al Muslimin. Beh tour kolli tamaam e kalamaati keh maa beh Farsi baa E tallafoz mikonim mesl e Emaam, Eghbaal, Eslaam, oonaa spell mikonan Imam, Iqbal, Islam.

Zemnan mikhaastam begam in Ikhwan al Muslimin oontour keh maalekeshaan eslaami (albbateh manzooram hich kas too ISP nist) zahmat mikeshan beh onvaan yek grooh e siaasi e solhjoo va zedd e khoshoonat moaa'refi konan nistand,. In haa baar haa dowlat mardaan va mokhaalefin e khodeshoon ro dar Mesr teror kardan, hattaa Naser ro ham 2 baar saa'y kardan teroresh konan. Dar zamaan jang e jahaani e 2m ham te'daad besyaar zyaadi azeshoon beh nafe' Hitler dar shaakh Afrighaa va Khaavar Myaaneh mijangidan keh beheshoon migoftan "Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar "
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Massoud injaasho kharaab kardi refigh. 28 Mordaad kojaa, jaryaane mesr kojaa? 28 Mordad zedde khaasteye mellat baa komake CIA o MI6 ye mosht chaaghoo kesh o chomaagh bedast oftaadan too khiaaboon mardom ro zadan o motefarregh kardan. Zaahedi ro az suiss aavordan iran, kessi ke yek khalaafkaar bood va daadgaahi shode bood loool. 28 Mordaad yeki az kasif tarin rooz haaye taarikhe novine in mamlekat bood chon Mossadegh shakhsiati bood bad az modathaa taghriban hame haazer boodan baahaash kenaar biaan. Mossadegh badbakht hattaa nagoft shah nabaashe, goft, ishoon biaad shah baashe vali ye shahe modern bashe, be majles ekhtiaaraati ro ke tebghe ghaanoone mashrooteh baayad daade sho ro bedeh. Hamin. Vali az in aadam mitarsidan. Boro khaateraate President Truman ro bekhoon. Khaste shode bood az daste delegation ingilisi haa. Migoft rooz o shab delegation mifrestan mishinan poshte dare office azam mikhaan Mossadegh ro barkenaar konam. Truman vali damesh garm hichvaght inkaar ro nakard. Be ingilisi haa chand baar goft, age shomaa mossadegh ro nemikhaain khodetoon berin ye fekri be haalesh bokonin. Maa dekhaalat nemionim. Motasefaane Truman raft o oon khaar kosse Eisenhower oomad kaari ro ke Truman haazer be anjaamesh nashod ro anjaam daad.
You guys are pre-programmed on the subject of 28 Mordad as if you were there. China - 28 Mordad was a circus there was no people movement....there were a couple of thousand pro Russia leftists (ttodeh) in partnership with Kashani and the Brits who wanted to bring about an anglo-russian regime.....they failed at that point....they failed again a few years later when Khomeini first came to the scenes....and finally succeeded in 1978....that is all. America had no role in planning any of this.....it all took place against Americas best interests and only succeeded when WH was occupied by inept presidents.
 

Chinaski

Elite Member
Jun 14, 2005
12,269
352
You guys are pre-programmed on the subject of 28 Mordad as if you were there. China - 28 Mordad was a circus there was no people movement....there were a couple of thousand pro Russia leftists (ttodeh) in partnership with Kashani and the Brits who wanted to bring about an anglo-russian regime.....they failed at that point....they failed again a few years later when Khomeini first came to the scenes....and finally succeeded in 1978....that is all. America had no role in planning any of this.....it all took place against Americas best interests and only succeeded when WH was occupied by inept presidents.
Mass you know i like you but this one is a heck of a pile of BS. Az aval taa akharesh. Taraf khodesh mige aare inkaaro karde, oonvaght to miaai mikhaay tarafo tabrae koni. In sa'ye to dar bigonaah neshoon daadane keshvari ke toosh zendegi mikkoni, moratab baaes mishe harfaai bezani ke gaahi oghaat neveshte haat kheyyyyli fantasy beshe chon baayad az in var o oon varesh bezani, be ye varesh ye seri chizaa ezaafeh koni, ke too oon mahdoodei ke doost daari jaa begire :)
 

feyenoord

Bench Warmer
Aug 23, 2005
1,706
0
Bi-honar;1060711]But you don't seem to understand what that difference is. In one case (Tunisia) the ruling party stepped down voluntarily (as did Ben Ali, Mubarak, the Shah and most communist parties in Eastern Europe) and in the other case (Mursi) the ruling party said the hell with the majority, we're going to hold on to power at any cost (like Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam or the IR).

And this direct relationship between the level of violence in an uprising and the unwillingness of the ruling party to accept a political transition or change plays itself out over and over again, as it's doing now in Ukraine and Thailand, whether you wish to understand, acknowledge or accept it.
Yes, and the difference is that the Tunisian Government did step down but after two years and the Egyptian government was overthrown by a mililtary coup less than a year when they took office. This timeline makes your argument redundant already. With other words, Egypt could have gone towards similar path that Tunisia went.


Like I said, you're struggling with some simple concepts, in this case "cause and effect". The army was NOT the cause of Mursi's removal, rather the army's removal of Mursi was the effect of a leader who was showing not only autocratic but Islamist tendencies, ruining the economy and trampling over the rights of a VERY large percentage of the population.
Yes thank you for pointing out to this lack of understanding of cause and effect thing. Keep in mind, that this cause and effect argument can be dragged into many areas and different episodes in history. so lets not even go there. Also, keep in mind the Egyptian army has been in power for a ling time and and they have also had their share in ruining the economy, which can be another cause and effect argument :D

And that's the other simple concept you are still struggling with. The masses aren't interested in your fairy tale "democratization process" - hell they don't even know what that means (not that I do even after reading pages and pages of your haphazard arguments). The masses are more concerned about putting bread on the table and if a secular autocratic rule will improve their chances of that most basic human need - the need to survive - then they will take it over a bunch of Islamist baboons talking about democracy in their sermons while they ruin the economy and destroy their country.
That is not my fariy tail concept.And if the masses were not interested in democracy they would have not started this revolution in the first place. So, speak not based on your own traumatizing experience.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
Yes, and the difference is that the Tunisian Government did step down but after two years and the Egyptian government was overthrown by a mililtary coup less than a year when they took office. This timeline makes your argument redundant already. With other words, Egypt could have gone towards similar path that Tunisia went.
This is exactly what I mean by saying you're very uninformed about the situation...

Egyptians' problems with Mursi and protests against his policies started in July 2012 and gradually increased until the situation became really serious and a stand-off ensued in November 2012. The army take-over did not happen until July 2013, exactly 51 weeks after the 1st protests against him. In other words, in one year (less a week) Mursi did not make any serious attempts to reach out to the opposition to see what their grievances were, let alone heed to their calls!

In contrast, Tunisia's Enhada party reached back to the opposition on the very 1st day of protests against it (in February 2013) by announcing that the government would be dissolved and a new all encompassing national government would be formed. Although the Egyptians would have been happy with a similar announcement from Mursi even months after the protests started, the Tunisians actually rejected the idea and a stand-off ensued in July 2013 when protesters called for the government's resignation. It took just two months less a day for the Enhada party to heed the calls of the protesters and agree to resign pending mediation by Tunisia's main and powerful labour union (who was on the side of the opposition).

Now, I can explain this to you another 10 times, but when you don't understand that simple and basic difference and keep repeating the same comment that Mursi "could have gone towards similar path", what do you expect to hear? Yes, he could have and should have, but he didn't - not on the same day, not two months later and not even a year later. And it would be absolutely ridiculous to extrapolate that and conclude that he would have done 3 days, weeks, months, years or decades later!

Yes thank you for pointing out to this lack of understanding of cause and effect thing. Keep in mind, that this cause and effect argument can be dragged into many areas and different episodes in history. so lets not even go there.
Yes, please do drag the argument "into many areas and different episodes in history". In fact, I have already asked you a dozen times to do so - to show me a single episode where an uprising was brought upon (caused) by autocratic tendencies of a leader and he/she suddenly became a proponent of democracy! 30 Pages and multiple requests later, I'm still waiting!


Also, keep in mind the Egyptian army has been in power for a ling time and and they have also had their share in ruining the economy, which can be another cause and effect argument :D
First of all, that argument is FULL of fallacies. Secondly, even if it was true, what does that have to do with anything?!


That is not my fariy tail concept.And if the masses were not interested in democracy they would have not started this revolution in the first place. So, speak not based on your own traumatizing experience.
I didn't say, or even imply, that the masses are not interested in democracy - I said they're not interested in your fairy tale "democratization process" (or frankly even understand what that means). If you don't understand the difference, we have bigger issues than I thought. Although, economics (low standard of living combined with a high perception of corruption) was the main driving force behind all of the Arab Spring uprisings, people did want democracy, but no one and I mean no one in the whole history of mankind has been interested in a 30 year democratization process. That's the whole point of an uprising and people risking their lives, otherwise they would have taken their sweet time and negotiated a "democratization process" with Ben Ali or Mubarak or Assad that would have taken 3 decades to implement!!!
 
Last edited:

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Mass you know i like you but this one is a heck of a pile of BS. Az aval taa akharesh. Taraf khodesh mige aare inkaaro karde, oonvaght to miaai mikhaay tarafo tabrae koni. In sa'ye to dar bigonaah neshoon daadane keshvari ke toosh zendegi mikkoni, moratab baaes mishe harfaai bezani ke gaahi oghaat neveshte haat kheyyyyli fantasy beshe chon baayad az in var o oon varesh bezani, be ye varesh ye seri chizaa ezaafeh koni, ke too oon mahdoodei ke doost daari jaa begire :)
I am sorry China but you are too naive to follow politics.....at least on this subject.
Taraf nemiad khodesh begeh inkaro kardeh - khanom Albright keh maal Englis hast miad migeh.....khanom clinton englisi ham tekraresh mikoneh.
ketab o maghaleh ro ham bezaar kenaar - at least on events like 28 mordad, or the 1978 revolution or the Syrian situation......as you know one of the first things colonialists do is to flood the media with BS articles. Do you believe the Iranian revolutions was a grass root uprising of people for liberty and democracy? if not then there are thousands of books and articles suggesting it was!!!
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Yes absolutely. So, at least now you are admitting it was a coup?
I said "so called coup"..... What happened in 28 Mordad was the unsuccessful version of what succeeded in 1978.......the co-op of leftists and akhoonds handing back Iran to the Anglo-Russian treaty of 1907.