Egypt and the Treaty of Westphalia

[carl]

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]

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]

Bill Lind article on the very subject of this thread.


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

[davidbfpo]

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.c...stern.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/stat...940288/photo/1

[Fuchs]

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.

[carl]

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.