Egyptian army chief calls for protests against 'terrorism'
Source: RTÉ
The chief of the Egyptian army has called on citizens to protest on Friday to give the army permission to take action against “terrorism and violence.”
Gen Abdul Fattah al-Sisi’s comments come following a series of violent clashes across the country.
At least one supporter of Egypt's deposed president Mohamed Mursi was killed in Cairo during a protest march, a security source and the Muslim Brotherhood said.
The Muslim Brotherhood said on its website that police in civilian clothes had opened fire using live ammunition on marching supporters, killing two and injuring others.
Read more: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0724/464347-egypt-death/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Now the Egyptian army asks for "permission" to take action? In the last month they have violently overthrown the country's democratically elected government, imprisoned its President without charge or trial and shut down every opposing newspaper and radio and television station. They have also wounded or killed hundreds of anti-coup protesters during numerous initially peaceful protests. They did all of that without "permission." So, what is it they have planned for which they feel the need to ask the public's OK? Just what kind of a bloodbath do the generals intend to unleash?
Whatever it is these bastards do, we need to remember: We paid for the tanks they drive, the guns they hold and the bullets they fire. At some level, our government (I think it's safe to assume) has approved the generals' new plan of action.
John2
(2,730 posts)why they give money or military Aid to Egypt and you know it. Egypt is a very important country in the Middle East and controls passage through the Suez Canal on the the way to the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf.
It is also a country of 80 million people and has a treaty with Israel.It used to be allied with Syria in the Seven Days War against Israel. Under every Egyptian President, religious extremism was illegal in Egypt. The present military was built under secular rulers and not religious extremists.
When Morsi called Jihad on Syria, the military saw that as a threat themselves. I've been one to pay attention to all communications, even the ones the Western media wants to censor. Morsi not only called a Jihad in Syria, but he tried to expell all relations with that country. The Eyptian military itself sent communications to the Syrian Government that they had no intentions of using the Egyptian military to invade another Arab country.
Muslim Brotherhood leaders and Morsi was calling for a War in Syria. It was all about his religious ideology. He would have even oppressed other Egyptians because they didn't hold his religious beliefs. I don't think that is the kind of democracy Egyptians want. Especially given their rich history in the Civilized World.
Nobody is stopping this fool and his supporters from participating in Government and practicing their religion. It is not democracy when you force your religious beliefs on other people. It is like saying the Christians should rule the United States because they are the simple majority. And every other religion is illegal if you place your religious beliefs into law. If this fool wants to be a preacher, then let him be a preacher. He has no business being the President. It is not a Temple.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Even if he is one day released from extra-legal detention, why would Morsi and the Muslim brotherhood bother to participate in another election? If they win again the army will just remove them from power like it did the first time. Democracy is dead in Egypt.
Until there is a real revolution, one which overthrows the army's general officer class as well as our puppet government, the only people who will be allowed to rule there will be those we and the military accept. The peoples' will is of less than no importance.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)that the Bro represent c. 50% of the voters.
David__77
(23,468 posts)Should it matter?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)that in the event of civil war, which is currently a real threat, the sides would be evenly matched in number..
David__77
(23,468 posts)Meaning, they will succumb to the prevailing force. Usually in wars there is great polarization, but most are in the middle.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)They just want freedom to kill any opposition to their coup without consequences. It's sick!
Igel
(35,337 posts)They do psychological violence by presenting their bodies and demanding that innocent soldiers fire lead slugs into them--then have the temerity to scream and bleed. /sarcasm
No, this is a cry for legitimacy. The MB is pushing all the same buttons on the "vending machine" that led to Mursiy's ouster. Long-term large-scale public protests married with violence against the protestors. Friday was chosen because after after the 1 pm "community" prayers there's often an outpourting from the mosques. Political Islam, after all.
That was the unambiguous justification and legitimization of Mubarak's ouster, with calls for finding those in the Army that killed protestors in a giant fit of justice-seeking rage.
That was the unambiguous justification and legitimization of Mursiy's ouster, with calls for ending the violence against the protestors because only a corrupt regime lacking any hint of legitimacy would engage in such a heinous practice.
The Army needs to at the very least show that it's a draw, otherwise the spin on the news out of Egypt might slow and the teeter-totter might tilt against them and their chosen one.
another view. The people who asked for the ousting of Morsi claimed it was done by a petition of 30 million signatures and presented to the army. They also claimed that was what the massive demonstrations was about. It also did have something to do with Morsi calling Jihad in Syria and closing the Syrian embassy which got many people upset. The military did send a communique to Syria after Morsi did that.
There were other communications in the Egyptian, Lebanese,and Syrian Media, that the U.S, State Department sent out communications trying to suppress demonstrations against Morsi. That got people upset against the U.S. State Department.
Keep following the trail. This was at the same time, the representative for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian National Council favored by Morsi and Qatar resigned his position as the leader of the Coalition.
At the same time, Erdogen of Turkey sent communications to Egypt vehemently objecting the overthrow of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian response to Erdogen, was to stay out of Egyptian Affairs and they would consider it interfering in their internal affairs. Only the Egyptian people have the right to choose their Government. It was an ultimatum to the Turkish prime minister as a warning from the Egyptian military.
If you follow that chain, and the other events Morsi tried to take Dictatorial powers, the Egyptian military saw Morsi as a threat to the instability of Egypt. He was leading Egypt to a sectarian war. Muslims within the Muslim Brotherhood was calling people worst than Jews and infidels. If you look at the Egyptian population, it includes Egyptians that aren't members of the Muslim brotherhood.
The U.S. interests in Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood has always been consistent. They will align themselves with any entity, to protect their sacred cow in the Middle East even if it means siding with religious zealots for the moment. It is the security and interest of Israel. That is their sacred vow to Israel. Anybody opposing it is anti-Israel or anti-semitic.
In 2003, a resolution was sign into law by George W. Bush by Congress, To opposed specifically Syria. They have locked in every President to be dictated by the Government of Israel. Representative Engel introduced it. I think that resolution should be challenged as UnConstitutional, because it lets a Foreign Government dictate our Foreign Policy and usurps the powers of the executive branch to Congress. Israel's interests should not be tied to the United States period. The Bottomline is, Morsi was one of the Biggest Arab Allies for the United States and Israel against Assad,Hezbullah and Iran. So it hurts the U.S. and Israel as well as the Syrian opposition. The U.S. turned against Mubarak because he was becoming more and more anti-Israel. So they got rid of him.
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)#BREAKING Egypt Islamists say army rally call 'announces civil war'
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/360051658409000961
John2
(2,730 posts)the Islamists know is force. Pretty soon, they will be calling for U.S. intervention when the Army give them what they ask for. We should just stay out of this one too.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The Muslim Brotherhood won democratic elections; they didn't come to power in a coup.
It was the Muslim Brotherhood that was removed by force.
It was the Muslim Brotherhood whose members were massacred at the Republican Guard barracks.
The Muslim Brotherhood chose the path of democratic participation, and the good "democrats" did everything they could to sabotage their government, then backed the guys with tanks and guns in a violent takedown of the elected government.
Not that Morsi was doing a great job, but in a democracy, there is a way to deal with governments you don't like. That way is not a military coup.
John2
(2,730 posts)a world of reality. There is no other alternative to deal with a religious Dictatorship. If Morsi and his supporters are going to force their religious views on me through government, the only other alternative would be War. As far as I'm concerned, religion and the freedoms of a Democracy are not compatible.
They are not a political organization but a religous organization. I do not believe in their religion. I don't think any person should be forced to believe in another person's religion through the force of Government. If Morsi wants to run a religious sect, then he needs to go to a Mosque. If he wants to play with Goverment, then he needs to accept the consequences of forcing his tyranny on the rights of others. If they can't agree through peaceful and democratic ways, then the only other way is through War.
That is his decision, because I don't think people will submit to his religious views. And why should they? You just have a negative and positive, which can't exist together.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)"Religious dictatorship" = popularly elected president and legislature who had the nerve to try to govern as if they had won elections or something. Some authoritarian tendencies? Yes. Creepy religious philosophy with which I disagree? Yes. Worth subverting the country's nascent democracy over? No.
The Brotherhood took the democratic path to power. Now they see how that has worked out for them. This isn't going away anytime soon. Meanwhile, the military continues to gun them down.
David__77
(23,468 posts)I don't think it's always so great.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)saw it on France 24's news ticker.
Yahoo link here : http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18135157/egypt-army-calls-for-rallies-islamists-warn-of-civil-war/
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)President Barack Obama has decided to halt the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Egypt for an undetermined period due to the "current situation" on the ground there, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
"Given the current situation in Egypt, we do not believe it is appropriate to move forward at this time with the delivery of F-16s," Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters, adding Obama's decision was made with the unanimous consent of his entire national security team.
Violence has surged in Egypt since the military overthrow of Mohamed Mursi, Egypt's first democratically elected president.
http://preview.reuters.com/2013/7/24/obama-halts-delivery-of-f-16s-to-egypt-given
MisterP
(23,730 posts)a lot of countries have this--they even have trading cards for them
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Dictators_Home.html
not to mention all the Singlaub/Bush/Lemnitzer/North/Lansdale types in the US itself: they do NOT like democracy
