Egypt and the Treaty of Westphalia

[carl]

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]

From Lawfare, The Cairo Diary: 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 (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 and Video Archive) has been running some good panels on Egypt (e.g., Quadrega), with most panelists being Egyptian or other Middle Easterners.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

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]

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]

Link to a very good article.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/ru...n=widgetphase1

[slapout9]

Link to another good article.



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-...151611137.html


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

[Fuchs]

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]

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

[davidbfpo]

Link to a very good article.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/ru...n=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]

Link to another good article.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.