PDA

View Full Version : Egypt and the Treaty of Westphalia



TheCurmudgeon
08-15-2013, 01:13 AM
This is a bit of a free-flowing thought at the moment, but I wanted to strike while the massacre was hot. Lets assume for a moment that the majority of Egyptians like the Muslim Brotherhood but their ideas about Shariah Law and religious intolerance do not sit well with the democratic minded minority. If these were separate ethnic groups who had traditional territorial claims we could separate them and the Brotherhood would form the Islamic State of Egypt and the democrats would form the Democratic State of Egypt. However, there is no such territorial divide.

Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia the Holy Roman See had representative in territories controlled by dukes or princes. It existed concurrent to the laws of the prince. Territory meant little and there was often "frontiers" between princely states that were not under the control of anyone. After Westphalia the globe was split up and states were created based on geography, not political identity. A historic leftover of this period is the distinction in English common law and American law between law and equity. Equity was originally the province of the church - a separate court where certain remedies could be had that weren't available at law.

My question is: was that a mistake? Should we consider the possibility of two peoples sharing the same territory but with differing political alliances?

Fuchs
08-15-2013, 01:34 AM
I'm still confused how much some Americans pay attention to the Treaty of Westphalia as a supposed birth of states. It's probably due to Lind's obsession with it. In Germany we pay more attention to the Thirty Years War itself (if at all) and think of the treaty mostly as a document which concluded the war and divided Germany in a Protestant North and a Catholic South.
The "state" thing developed only slowly and incrementally afterwards. Prussia got most of its revenues from the King's domains (agricultural estates) well into the 19th century, for example.


The alternative to a state - a patchwork of different legislative, executive and judicature powers from village to village if not from farm to farm - would have inhibited economic and political development with unbearable transaction costs and uncertainty.

We learned to build and run sophisticated economies and states. There are indeed minority problems (border regions, nomads, multi-ethnic metropolis, political fringes, race, gender, age et cetera) and the political minority still dislikes being ruled by the majority.
Minority protection rights, the hope of one day being on the ruling team again and constitutions with supposedly eternal basic rules are still unsatisfactory to some. This is especially evident if a lack of democratic culture devalues the reliability of rights and constitution. It's also evident when a minority is obviously a permanent minority because it's too small.

The new Western European way of handling ethnic problems is largely to make borders less relevant and to have large parties which strive to represent a large spectrum of the society.
The old Lebanese way up until their civil war was proportional power allocation; power was shared according to strict and lasting rules. This system ultimately broke down under the stress of being Israel's neighbour.


I suppose Egypt is not going to solve its political dilemma any time soon because its politicians and generals are too egoistic and treat the country too much as a reproducing cake of which they want the biggest possible share. It's their prey, and they're not intent on working out a sustainable solution.

slapout9
08-15-2013, 05:47 AM
My question is: was that a mistake? Should we consider the possibility of two peoples sharing the same territory but with differing political alliances?

No. We should support the Egyptian Army with everything possible and let them wipe the Muslim Brotherhood of the face of the earth.

Fuchs
08-15-2013, 09:47 AM
No. We should support the Egyptian Army with everything possible and let them wipe the Muslim Brotherhood of the face of the earth.

*Sigh*

Look, this would require us to watch patiently when Egypt overruns

4.1 Bahrain
4.2 Syria
4.3 Jordan
4.4 Iran
4.5 Iraq
4.6 Palestine
4.7 Saudi Arabia
4.8 Kuwait
4.9 Yemen
4.10 Oman

5 Elsewhere in Africa

5.1 Algeria
5.2 Sudan
5.3 Somalia
5.4 Tunisia
5.5 Libya
5.6 Mauritania

6 Other states

6.1 Russian Federation
6.2 United States
6.3 United Kingdom
6.4 Indonesia
(quote of Wikipedia's list of countries with MB presence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood))

Try again. You'll make yourself proud if you can provide a more intelligent comment.

condottiere
08-15-2013, 12:05 PM
A better comparison might be the Iranian and French Revolutions.

The MB achieved power without true upheaval, and without an existential crisis that would have allowed them to rule in a state of emergency where they could demonize and imprison their opponents. Then they over reached and alarmed Egyptians who believe that all that they had sacrificed and fought for was about to be hijacked and mutated into a theocracy.

They should partition the country into Upper and Lower Egypt, before it really escalates into a civil war, as Egyptians try to stamp an identity onto their country, that a substantial number of their fellow citizens disagree with.

TheCurmudgeon
08-15-2013, 12:54 PM
Fuchs,

It’s not about State formation, it’s about sovereignty, specifically, exclusive sovereignty – the idea that within a set territory there could be only one ruler. As I understand it this eliminated the Church’s ability to enforce edicts within a territory controlled by a secular power. Prior to that point there were parallel systems that existed in the same territory.

This idea of a single exclusive sovereign has been under attack for some time by the R2P crowd. Their idea is that where the sovereign acts unjustly against her own people others from outside the sovereign’s territories have the legal authority to intervene. This idea would be similar in that it attacks the principle of exclusive sovereignty, except it looks at the idea of parallel sovereignty.

It is probably too late. The hatreds are settling in. Morsi is now the equivalent of the Twelve Imam (excuse my use of a Sh’iah idea for a Sunni organization). He is perhaps more powerful now than he was before. He is the only person who can stop this rift from becoming the stuff of legend.

BayonetBrant
08-15-2013, 01:42 PM
My question is: was that a mistake? Should we consider the possibility of two peoples sharing the same territory but with differing political alliances?

I'm going to ask, and let someone smarter than me (pretty much everyone here) point out the differences

- is the ultimate political solution on Bosnia (parallel Serb/Bosniak gov'ts) similar enough to consider as a basis for a solution like this?

davidbfpo
08-15-2013, 02:57 PM
My question is: was that a mistake? Should we consider the possibility of two peoples sharing the same territory but with differing political alliances?

Western Europe took a long time, centuries after the Treaty of Westphalia, to evolve systems of governance where peoples and politics coexisted with minimal violent conflict. Not to overlook what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, the wider FRY and many other places, close to me Northern Ireland.

One of the largely forgotten episodes after 1918, partly as the League of Nations was responsible, were the number of population transfers, e.g. between Greece and Turkey in Thrace.

There were and remain a few places where sovereignty was shared, usually small tropical islands involving France and the UK.

Today it is difficult to see how partition and population transfer could happen by agreement.

TheCurmudgeon
08-15-2013, 03:05 PM
Western Europe took a long time, centuries after the Treaty of Westphalia, to evolve systems of governance where peoples and politics coexisted with minimal violent conflict. Not to overlook what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, the wider FRY and many other places, close to me Northern Ireland.

One of the largely forgotten episodes after 1918, partly as the League of Nations was responsible, were the number of population transfers, e.g. between Greece and Turkey in Thrace.

There were and remain a few places where sovereignty was shared, usually small tropical islands involving France and the UK.

Today it is difficult to see how partition and population transfer could happen by agreement.

But that is not the question - I am not looking at partition. That is the solution we automatically default to. Nor am I looking to something like Northern Ireland where both parties agree to a common government. In certain respects I am looking at going back to a time before the Treaty.

What I am talking about it two peoples sharing the same territory living under different laws - one secular and one religious. Certain common services would be provided by the central government but the legal system that the people live by would be separate depending on which group you declare yourself a part of. For example, if I were secular I could make statements against Muhammad but if I were a member of the religious group that would be a crime punishable by law.

thames22
08-15-2013, 04:04 PM
In a certain sense, your question touchs on freedom of thought and belief. While today an accepted concept in Europe and North America, initial notions of religious rights developed during a roughly 100 year period from the 1550s to the 1650s when historic European agreements laid a foundation for today’s established rights. During this period, Europe was wracked with fighting stemming from “confessional polarization” and intra-religious hatred. Several notable peace agreements took into account the importance of respecting religious identity and religious rights, such as the Peace of Augsburg, the Union of Utrecht, and the Edict of Nantes. Implemented with varying degrees of success, they are notable accomplishments that built to the Peace of Westphalia.

Today, modern "Westphalian" systems of law permit different sets of legal systems to a certain point. Individual members of religious communities can voluntarily opt into their religious legal systems, which would obligate them to certain moral standards. The Amish in Pennsylvania, for example. People must be free to leave, but then they face social ostracism. However, religious communities would not have the power to enforce criminal punishments, which is of course reserved to the state.

TheCurmudgeon
08-15-2013, 05:15 PM
Condettiere - I believe your comparison with the French Revolution will prove to be the most accurate.

BB, - I don't know enough about Bosnia to make any assessment. I would be interested to see if it really does exist with two separate systems in the same territory.

T22 – The Amish make for an interesting argument, but as you say, they really do not have their own laws as much as they have strictly enforced social norms.

The more I think about this the more I find it unlikely to be successful. Humans are territorial. Ethnic groups often define themselves with regards to a place on the face of the earth. This connection along with ideas about the secular state are sometimes associated with the birth of nationalism, although I personally think of a “nation” as a group of people who share a common heritage, language, myths, history, and territory – a “state” is the government overlaid upon the nation. I cringe every time I hear the term “nation-building” being associated with places like Afghanistan. Outsiders can build a state – that is just the functional components of government. Outsiders cannot build a nation – that only members of that nation can do.

slapout9
08-15-2013, 05:23 PM
*Sigh*

Look, this would require us to watch patiently when Egypt overruns

(quote of Wikipedia's list of countries with MB presence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood))

Try again. You'll make yourself proud if you can provide a more intelligent comment.



*Burp*
You Guys (Germans) started it all, so you need to help clean it up.

The idea came from John Rothmann after hearing him on a radio interview and reading about his book. Link to book review below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_of_Evil

wm
08-15-2013, 05:33 PM
But that is not the question - I am not looking at partition. That is the solution we automatically default to. Nor am I looking to something like Northern Ireland where both parties agree to a common government. In certain respects I am looking at going back to a time before the Treaty.

What I am talking about it two peoples sharing the same territory living under different laws - one secular and one religious. Certain common services would be provided by the central government but the legal system that the people live by would be separate depending on which group you declare yourself a part of. For example, if I were secular I could make statements against Muhammad but if I were a member of the religious group that would be a crime punishable by law.

I'm not aware of any such construction in Western history at least. A possible exception was the division in the Middle Ages between secular and canon law. But this was not symmetrical--the clergy was outside secular law but the laity was subject to both secular and canon law as the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and Pope Grepeory VII in the 11th Century shows. Gregory could excommunicate Henry; Henry could do nothing to Gregory. Perhaps something like what you want existed in those cases of imperial immediacy where a Prince-Bishopric coincided with a Church diocese, but again I think it was be limited to a division along the lines of the clergy and the laity with the same asymmetry noted above.

carl
08-16-2013, 04:32 AM
The way I see it, the Muslim Brotherhood figures Allah is on their side and half measures won't do if you have the backing of god. I don't see much room for compromise here. If you figure the Copts have to convert or die, what is there to talk about? So it may be a matter of kill or be killed as hard as that is.

With the takfiri movement in the Muslim world that is what it will always come down to. People who believe god is on their side aren't likely to compromise.

TheCurmudgeon
08-16-2013, 11:37 AM
With the takfiri movement in the Muslim world that is what it will always come down to. People who believe god is on their side aren't likely to compromise.

I would disagree. History is full of examples where people of different beliefs lived together. Every hamlet had its own favored god (which in the modern Christian world translated into their own patron saint). The Islamic faith did not start out evangelical. The conquering armies often set up their own military towns away from the local populace. When the Islamic armies conquered the Iberian peninsula they did not force everyone to convert but instead saw the non-Islamic occupants as ahl al-dhimma (the people under protection). That did not mean that they were treated equally, but they were not forced to convert.

Now I agree that religion offers certain advantages when it comes to encouraging conflict, not the least of which is the idea that God is on our side and therefore 1) everyone else is unworthy (they may not have souls and therefore are not even human), and 2) you are right in taking any action God "directs". But these are only rationalizations that allow "civilized" people to do what they already want to do - to succumb to their more basic motivations. Islam also has the history of being not only a religion but a political system of sorts, which makes the problem more vexing. But I do not believe that you cannot have an country in the Islamic world that allows for freedom of religion and a secular government. Just not sure how to accomplish it in a period of potential social and political transition.

condottiere
08-16-2013, 12:07 PM
You can't convert all the Jews and Christians immediately, otherwise you have no tax base.

Usually, the only way other religions can co-exist with Islam is if the authorities are anxious not to upset the economic applecart.

carl
08-16-2013, 02:24 PM
Curmudgeon:

You can have a Muslim country with reasonable government. That was Ataturk's basic point my small knowledge base seems to recall. The Baathist movement was secular. There used to be a lot of Catholics in Iraq. It can be done and I believe was done.

But, it can't be done under the takfiris. Those guys aren't reasonable or they wouldn't be what they are. There is a struggle in the Muslim/Arab world now between the wild eyed killers and those who for example would let the Copts or the Ahmadis live. The conflict in Egypt can be viewed I think in that light, secularists vs. the takfiris. At least the Egyptian Army may view it that way.

The wild eyed killers don't even seem to go for the apartheid system of old. Besides, I'm not sure that would fly nowadays.

TheCurmudgeon
08-16-2013, 02:32 PM
The wild eyed killers don't even seem to go for the apartheid system of old. Besides, I'm not sure that would fly nowadays.

That is an excellent point. Is the Leviathan still necessary in some situations?I think the world we Westerner's created offers no in-between. That may be our downfall.

carl
08-16-2013, 03:12 PM
I think the world we Westerner's created offers no in-between. That may be our downfall.

Exactly. That is a great point too. Pinochet or Franco were unpleasant, repugnant maybe, but they offered a stepping stone to something that got a lot better. The takfiris won't.

The actions of the Turkish Army over the decades maybe didn't conform to our sensibilities but they seemed to do Turkey good.

Fuchs
08-16-2013, 05:46 PM
Exactly. That is a great point too. Pinochet or Franco were unpleasant, repugnant maybe, but they offered a stepping stone to something that got a lot better.

Come on. Both were worse than what preceded them.

carl
08-16-2013, 06:04 PM
Come on. Both were worse than what preceded them.

That is beside the point, which is they provided stepping stones to something much better.

jmm99
08-16-2013, 07:24 PM
From Lawfare, The Cairo Diary: Scenes from a Bloodbath (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/the-cairo-dairy-scenes-from-a-bloodbath/) (by Laura Dean, August 15, 2013):


Laura Dean is a freelance journalist living and working in Egypt and sometimes other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. She grew up in Bahrain and graduated from the University of Chicago. Previously, she worked as an election observer with the Carter Center in Tunisia and Libya and served on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, DC.

From Revolt on the Nile, Sectarianism (http://nilerevolt.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/1198/) (started 14 Aug 2013):


This has been put together as aggregated information that was shared online about attacks on churches and their institutions, Christians and their homes, and other relevant information. We started collecting information on August 14 and not before but are adding anything after.

The list has been compiled and managed by Mai El-Sadany, Amir Beshay, and myself, Amira Mikhail.

Many people have participated in supplying links, information, and tweets. We appreciate their contributions and encourage continued and joint efforts to properly document these attacks.

Please note that this is a work-in-progress and is being updated on a regular basis. Information so far is unverified although most is backed up with tweets and photos. We are hoping to continue the efforts to verify details.

Egypt is not Germany of the Thirty Years' War, but it is getting sectarian in more ways than one. Deutsche Welle (Live Stream (http://mediacenter.dw.de/english/live/) and Video Archive (http://mediacenter.dw.de/english/video/)) has been running some good panels on Egypt (e.g., Quadrega (http://www.dw.de/quadriga-bloodshed-in-egypt-no-way-out-2013-08-15/e-16969014-9798)), with most panelists being Egyptian or other Middle Easterners.

Regards

Mike

Fuchs
08-16-2013, 07:32 PM
That is beside the point, which is they provided stepping stones to something much better.

There is little reason to believe that their path was a quicker path to this "something much better" than their predecessors.

Neither Franco's nor Pinochet's assault on the previous government was the lesser evil.


(...)stepping stone to something that got a lot better. The takfiris won't.

I doubt that the Egyptian MB as a whole can be labelled "takfiris".

carl
08-16-2013, 08:48 PM
There is little reason to believe that their path was a quicker path to this "something much better" than their predecessors.

Neither Franco's nor Pinochet's assault on the previous government was the lesser evil. I that the Egyptian MB as a whole can be labelled "takfiris".

The path taken in Spain and Chile did lead to something better.

As far as takfiri goes, you call 'em like you see 'em, and I'll call 'em like I see 'em.

slapout9
08-16-2013, 11:23 PM
Link to a very good article.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/rumsfeld-egypt-obama-clinton/2013/08/14/id/520456?promo_code=11013-1&utm_source=11013Phillips_Blogs&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

slapout9
08-16-2013, 11:31 PM
Link to another good article.



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-calls-arabs-stand-egypt-151611137.html


Egyptian Army PROMISES TO REBUILD CHURCHES!!!!!! They are the true force of freedom and fairness not the phony Muslim Brotherhood.

Fuchs
08-17-2013, 01:11 AM
You appear to seek bits of info that reinforce your opinion...


Look, the army didn't do the coup for secularism or for democracy. It didn't do the coup for freedom.


The Egyptian army is a gargantuan scam. It doesn't only own factories for uniforms, guns, ammo, boots and vehicles, but also factories and other enterprises for entirely civilian products. It's even more extreme than the PLA in this regard.

Guess who gets to harvest the most corruption income from this system?
Right, the generals (less so admirals).

Guess why the Egyptian army did a coup d'tat against the MB.
Mursi et al became a threat to this steady stream of corruption income and the generals were payment for the coup.

Guess why the Egyptian army pushes for favourable grades in the West (rebuild churches etc.).
They don't only want the billions of subsidies flowing into Egypt from Gulf countries, but also the 1.2 billion or so which flow quite directly into the Egyptian army. And they don't want a UN arms embargo. This could long-term ruin their access to new toys.

________________

Besides; Rumsfeld? Come on, that guy is discredited because he did, wrote, said and thought too much nonsense.

carl
08-17-2013, 03:46 AM
Fuchs:

All that you say may be true, but under which regime are the Copts more likely to live to a ripe old age? Which regime is less likely to fight with Israel in the long run ( which for better or worse is important to us)? The triumph of which regime is more likely to weaken the takfiris (indulge my use of that word)? Not the Muslim Brotherhood that's for sure. So yeah the Egyptian Army is hugely flawed but from our point of view they are better than the other guy.

Not that what we think, say or will make any difference. This is going to be played out in Egypt by Egyptians, which is probably has it should be. We don't have enough influence or pull to affect it much. The oil states do, but not us.

slapout9
08-17-2013, 05:10 AM
Fuchs:

Who killed Anwar Sadat? The peace loving Muslim Brotherhood because he signed a peace treaty with Israel. They are nothing but a front organization for a rogue terrorist group.

slapout9
08-17-2013, 05:30 AM
Bill Lind article on the very subject of this thread.


https://www.traditionalright.com/another-4gw-fracture/

davidbfpo
08-17-2013, 10:31 AM
On the BBC News yesterday, Professor Rosemary Hollis was interviewed and remarked that 33% of the Egyptian economy is owned by the military.

Throughout the Mubarek years former soldiers dominated provincial government, albeit wearing suits and often after retirement. IIRC Egypt has an economy that is far from being "free market", has a huge public sector and subsidies are the way of keeping the peace.

That the army has promised to rebuild churches I'd take with a very large "pinch of salt". After the army drove vehicles into a peaceful march by Copts in 2011 (IIRC) and their absence from protecting churches of late I expect the Copts will wait to see what actually happens. Nor do I expect the Saudis and Gulf states will be too keen on their subsidies go on rebuilding any Christian churches.

A visitor to Egypt, who left in the Spring, has an interesting column and pays particular attention to the Coptic Christians:http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-representation-of-egypt-in-western.html?m=1

As one Copt said on the BBC yesterday, something akin to "Let them burn the churches, we with true Muslims will rebuild them". In support is this stunning photo, showing Muslims protecting a church and praying outside:https://twitter.com/EVA1970EVET/status/368327662780940288/photo/1

davidbfpo
08-17-2013, 10:44 AM
Link to a very good article.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/rumsfeld-egypt-obama-clinton/2013/08/14/id/520456?promo_code=11013-1&utm_source=11013Phillips_Blogs&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

Slap,

I suspect Rumsfield would have supported Mubarek remaining in power, on the grounds he has just given. Stability first for our national interests, what happens to Egyptians, what's that got to do with the USA?

davidbfpo
08-17-2013, 10:51 AM
Link to another good article.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-calls-arabs-stand-egypt-151611137.html

The Saudi regime has long opposed the 'Arab Spring', indeed called it the 'Arab Winter' (I did a longer post sometime ago on this stance). Yes they have given copious financial support to Egypt, for strategic reasons and to reduce non-Arab influence i.e. the USA.

Given the known domestic stance of the Saudi royal family, which is the regime, I have some doubts that it will resonate with Egyptians anyway.

omarali50
08-17-2013, 04:18 PM
I wrote the following comment on a liberal blog and I would have thought it would not apply on a site where some people actually make decisions about such things, but reading the thread, I thought it may even fit here:
My ex-boss was Egyptian. We talked at times about Egypt and he was rather pessimistic. Per his report, the culture of officialdom in Egypt is very primitive and authoritarian (even by South Asian standards). The general solution to everything is to round up the usual suspects and beat the #### out of them. And many people outside of the army also seem to think thats pretty much a good idea. And the conspiracy theories... They outdo anything one can sample in Pakistan or India. One can devise a "conspiracy meter" to rank countries in terms of their literate population's eagerness to believe incredible bull#### (of course all such statements are RELATIVE statements...i accept that I or Americans or Japanese or whatever probably believe a lot of BS conspiracies too..but there is BS and then there is absolutely incredible BS). Egypt would rank high on that ranking. My boss had proposed (and had funding) for a DNA study of one huge inbred rural family near his home village. He couldnt get permission to do it because Egyptian officials were (seriously, totally seriously, not just "waiting for baksheesh" seriously) afraid that their DNA would end up in some computer where Israelis could access it and then devise Egyptian-specific biological weapons. In a way, thats amazingly far-sighted. But also stupid. Anyway, Egypt seems in for a lot of violence. And everyone who is not Egyptian will get their chance to blame their pet villians, from mad Muslims to bad Amrika to the elders of Zion. Those killing and dying will care little for our status updates and comments, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...
Its a sad situation. But not totally unexpected. The army on one side, the brothers on the other. And many outsiders ready to stir the pot. Peace would be a miracle.

omarali50
08-17-2013, 05:08 PM
btw, the Saudi stance on Egypt, while entirely self-serving and cynincal, is not far from a persistent strand of Sunni historical tradition in terms of justification. There is a well established tradition in Islamic history of justifying any and all repression when the choice is presented as one between "order" and "chaos". Based on such considerations, official scholars had little trouble justifying the killing of almost any rebel group, even the killing of the grandson of the prophet (karbala) or the siege and pillage of the prophet's city (by the Ummayads) and of the kaaba itself. Killing protesters in Cairo doesnt even come close...

Fuchs
08-17-2013, 06:14 PM
Fuchs:

All that you say may be true, but under which regime are the Copts more likely to live to a ripe old age? Which regime is less likely to fight with Israel in the long run ( which for better or worse is important to us)? The triumph of which regime is more likely to weaken the takfiris (indulge my use of that word)? Not the Muslim Brotherhood that's for sure. So yeah the Egyptian Army is hugely flawed but from our point of view they are better than the other guy.

Not that what we think, say or will make any difference. This is going to be played out in Egypt by Egyptians, which is probably has it should be. We don't have enough influence or pull to affect it much. The oil states do, but not us.

The Copts have probably the highest life expectancy if they emigrate, which is more likely under MB.
More seriously; why do you think these (supposed to be rhetorical) questions are a good idea while seemingly addressing me?

My stance is that the Egypts have the choice between the devil and the deep sea. Their military is horrible. It's not clear which of their options is the least horrible one.
Sure, people with ingrained anti-Muslim stance will intuitively side against the MB, but that doesn't make this stance correct.

And it's outright embarrassing to see how easily some people get manipulated into cheerleading for one team. Their susceptibility to even modestly powerful propaganda is really, really embarrassing and disconcerting.

I didn't get my annual infraction yet, so I feel free to express my opinion about people who already jumped into one team's boat on the Egyptian conflict: They're tools.
They're the kind of people which can get talked into attacking a distant foreign country under entirely wrong pretences.*




Fuchs:

Who killed Anwar Sadat? The peace loving Muslim Brotherhood because he signed a peace treaty with Israel. They are nothing but a front organization for a rogue terrorist group.

... and the Democrats were pro-segregation. Stances from a generation or more ago are hardly relevant any more.
But I already understood; you're exclusively cherry-picking bits which please your opinion, and not really looking at the whole picture any more (or ever).



*: Which, embarrassingly, happened to me in '99 as well, but I suppose I have worked successfully against my gullibility.

TheCurmudgeon
08-17-2013, 06:41 PM
btw, the Saudi stance on Egypt, while entirely self-serving and cynincal, is not far from a persistent strand of Sunni historical tradition in terms of justification. There is a well established tradition in Islamic history of justifying any and all repression when the choice is presented as one between "order" and "chaos". Based on such considerations, official scholars had little trouble justifying the killing of almost any rebel group, even the killing of the grandson of the prophet (karbala) or the siege and pillage of the prophet's city (by the Ummayads) and of the kaaba itself. Killing protesters in Cairo doesnt even come close...

O-50 - I have long believed that what you describe is not unique to Arabs or Muslims. This is a characteristic of any group that I would describe as communitarian. These are groups where individual rights or interest are subservient to the interests of the group, they tend to be hierarchical, marriages are arranged, and the group's ideals dictate the way you are supposed to think and feel. Some have termed these "traditional" societies but I prefer the term communitarian.

In any case, you spoke about even the "democratic" Egyptian's preferring order to liberty. How do they justify that position?

BTW, thanks for posting.

carl
08-18-2013, 07:29 PM
The Copts have probably the highest life expectancy if they emigrate, which is more likely under MB.

That is not a very fine choice for an Egyptian who is a Coptic Christian, you can live if you leave your country and the country of your ancestors going back more than 1,000 years. 10% of the population too. Not such a fine choice.


More seriously; why do you think these (supposed to be rhetorical) questions are a good idea while seemingly addressing me?

Those weren't rhetorical questions at all. This is a rhetorical question "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" Even that isn't a rhetorical question because the Shadow knows.

No those questions were a rhetorical device. I outlined my position by stating the questions and then answering them myself.


My stance is that the Egypts have the choice between the devil and the deep sea. Their military is horrible. It's not clear which of their options is the least horrible one.

You may be right. But people can fight awful hard for the lesser of two evils once they have made up their minds.