ZenGum • Jun 18, 2013 9:56 am
Turkey!
Brazil!
Who? Why? Where next?
Brazil!
Who? Why? Where next?
ZenGum;868272 wrote:Why?
Spexxvet;868275 wrote:It's due to the huge disparity between the haves and have-nots.
Spexxvet;868275 wrote:It's due to the huge disparity between the haves and have-nots.
footfootfoot;868301 wrote:Could it be any greater than in the US?
We're getting rid of all our stuff, selling our house, I'm only working contract jobs, paid off all our debt and socking my exorbitant IT fees into savings.Griff;868314 wrote:That would be the healthy response...
CAIRO -- In what may be Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy's final day in office, Muslim Brotherhood officials continued to strike a defiant note against their civilian and military opponents.
The Egyptian military's deadline for all political forces to reconcile -- a possibility that seems more remote than ever -- will expire around 5 p.m. in Cairo. After that time, the country's top generals have promised to lay out a political roadmap that reportedly includes plans to suspend the constitution, dissolve the Islamist-dominated Shura Council, and set up an interim council to rule the country. But Egypt's Islamist elite have vowed to defy the ultimatum, even at the risk of bloodshed.
piercehawkeye45;869317 wrote:Some of the largest protests in Egyptian history has occurred in the past few days to call for Morsy's resignation.
“Rarely in history do elected presidents leave power without a lot of bloodshed,” said Joshua Stacher, an Egypt expert and a political scientist at Kent State University in Ohio. “The Brotherhood is viewing what happened yesterday as an existential threat.”Ironic he discussed presidential removal at Kent State.
he has been behaving unconstitutionally.
Griff;868314 wrote:That would be the healthy response...
classicman;869719 wrote:What is interesting is that the US govt is not calling it a coup when thats absolutely what it is. Why you might as?
So that we can continue to give them shit-tons of aid money.
No no, I'm serious. Really.
ZenGum;869771 wrote:They're being a lot more ruthless with the Brotherhood than they were with the general protestors. :right:
classicman;869748 wrote:Everyone is calling it a cop EXCEPT the US. Why? because ...
Sundae wrote:I'll admit I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but I also suspect that not all 51 dead (it's not 51 shot at, it's 51 fatalities) were armed.
“With pride, I announce my defection from Al Saudi family in Saudi Arabia,” he wrote in his statement.
“This regime in Saudi Arabia does not stand by God’s rules or even (country’s) established rules and its policies, decisions, and actions are totally based on personal will of its leaders.”
“All that is said in Saudi Arabia about respecting law and religion rules are factitious so that they can lie and pretend that the regime obeys Islamic rules.”
He criticized the royal family for considering the country as its own property while silencing all voices from inside and outside the government calling for any change and reforms.
Khalid Bin Farhan said the ruling family has deliberately pulled the country to the current condition where cries of oppressed people are ignored. “They don’t think about anything but their personal benefits and do not care for country’s and people’s interests or even national security,” he added.
He warned that current problems of Saudi Arabia are not “temporary or superficial” and they do not end at unemployment, low wages and unjustified distribution of common wealth, facilities and services.
Should one want to create conflict and instability (what extremists want), then ones takes a shoot and runs away. Then 51 others get shot.glatt;869781 wrote:... but in general, if you shoot at soldiers, you shouldn't be surprised if they shoot back.
ZenGum;870823 wrote:Meanwhile, anyone watching North Carolina?
"It appears that a crowd had come from the Stewartstown Road end and from the Black's Road end into the estate and just started - for no reason other than I would take purely sectarian reasons - attacking cars.
The numbers of them. You are used to people walking by the odd Saturday night and throwing bricks or throwing bottles but fact that there was so many of them, this time, was extremely worrying."
tw;871711 wrote:Should one want to create conflict and instability (what extremists want), then ones takes a shoot and runs away. Then 51 others get shot.
That is the responsibility of a soldier. To be shot at and not fire back. Because the one in 1000 was not identified.
There is nothing fair about being responsible. Soldiers can complain about how life is unfair. But they must ACT responsibly. Let's never forget the murder of innocent students at Kent State. And in the days of Nixon, those soldiers were considered innocent. To this day, some blame students for their own death. Because soldiers violated their responsibilities.
The senior official did not describe the legal reasoning behind the finding, saying only, “The law does not require us to make a formal determination as to whether a coup took place, and it is not in our national interest to make such a determination.”
“We will not say it was a coup, we will not say it was not a coup, we will just not say,” the official said.
Sundae;872496 wrote:Dunno. Although I actually agree with what he is saying, the terms he uses don't sound like they are his own naturally occurring ideas.
But then I was distraction by the concept of Free Arabs.
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive.
The ancient sages said "do not despise the snake for having no horns, for who is to say it will not become a dragon?"
So may one just man become an army.
Officials in Egypt continue to add to the grim body count from yesterday's military assault on civilian protesters that may have been the single bloodiest day of the entire Arab Spring. The Egyptian Health Ministry puts the "official" death toll from Wednesday's attacks on Muslim Brotherhood protesters at 525, but even that may not be a complete count of the carnage. The total has already been updated several times this morning, and The New York Times Cairo bureau chief David Kirkpatrick reports that another 250 dead bodies found in a Cairo mosque may not be included in that official figure. The total number of deaths recorded during the entire three weeks of the 2011 revolution toppled former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 was 846.
Witnesses to yesterday's attacks described horrifying levels of violence as military and police forces gunned down mostly unarmed protesters. (One protestor told reporter Bel Trew of Foreign Policy, "They struck us down like animals... I can't tell you the amount of people who died in front of me.") Some were burned alive in their tents, while others were hit with tear gas canisters, bird shot, and the armored vehicles police used to clear out the sit-in camps that been growing for several weeks. Local mosques became makeshift hospitals and then morgues as bodies were lined up on the floor waiting to be identified, counted, and buried. At least four members of the media were killed trying to report from the scene.
Following the peace treaty with Israel, between 1979 and 2003, the U.S. has provided Egypt with about $19 billion in military aid, making Egypt the second largest non-NATO recipient of U.S. military aid after Israel. Also, Egypt received about $30 billion in economic aid within the same time frame. In 2009, the U.S. provided a military assistance of US$ 1.3 billion (inflation adjusted US$ 1.39 billion in 2013), and an economic assistance of US$ 250 million (inflation adjusted US$ 267.5 million in 2013).[3] In 1989 both Egypt and Israel became a Major non-NATO ally of the United States.
Military cooperation between the U.S. and Egypt is probably the
strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni, the former Commandant of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), once said, "Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me to the region." Egypt was also described during the Clinton Administration as the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. U.S. military assistance to Egypt was considered part of the administration's strategy to maintaining continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as critical route for U.S. warships transiting between the Mediterranean and either the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.
The Egyptian military provides indirect support for the foreign policy of Egypt in the region. Egypt is the strongest military power on the African continent, and according to Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies' annual Middle East Strategic Balance, the second largest in the Middle East, after Israel.
Textbook example of "ambivalent". Not the colloquial "don't care" definition; the actual "care, but don't know which way" definition.glatt;873440 wrote:It's fucked up. Can't root for either side. I want the military to impose some order and keep the government secular, but I don't think massacring the Islamists is going to help matters.
US has a problem. A blunt honest US position is religion has no place in any government. But that causes problems with other 'friendly' governments that really are not democracies because religion is fully embedded into their governments. Israel being a perfect example. Due to religion, then overt and intentional double standards (also called racism) is justified. That must not exist in any true democracy.Lamplighter;873445 wrote:I suspect the US will sit back and wait to see how things work out, rather than trying to enter the fray on one side or the other.
Racism was always about judging people only on first impressions. Racism was never only about race.BigV;873510 wrote:You are seriously misusing the term "racism".
Prejudice is only one subset of the actual problem - racism. Racism was never about race. Because people of the same race were 'racist' towards each other. While not exercising racism against others of the same color but more racially different. Bigotry and prejudice are examples of a bigger problem called racism - judging people on first impressions - also called emotion.Undertoad;873543 wrote:Racism is about race. The term you are seeking is "prejudice".
tw;873555 wrote:Racism was never about race.
tw;873555 wrote:snip--
Meanwhile arguing of a tiny point averts what is relevant. Democracy requires separation of church and state. What is your opinion? Yes or No? Please stick to what is relevant.
--snip
tw;873488 wrote:US has a problem. A blunt honest US position is religion has no place in any government.
We have lots of problems with lots of other governments for lots of reasons, some of which are rooted in the difference between the tradition in the United States of separating church and state and the tradition in other governments that are less inimical to that idea. Israel being a perfect example. However. As I indicated, by itself, religion integrated into government doesn't mean the government can't be democratic. How things are decided is the defining characteristic of democracy, and that *can* include decisions about religion.tw;873488 wrote:But that causes problems with other 'friendly' governments that really are not democracies because religion is fully embedded into their governments. Israel being a perfect example.
Yeah... this is where you go off the rails and just mashup definitions and words, oblivious to what the words really mean. You have spoken in the past about how talking heads on the right use words disingenuously. This is plain misuse and I called you on it, others called you on it, why you persist is your business. But if you base your arguments on it, they're faulty. Meanwhile, I'll just overlook it.tw;873488 wrote:Due to religion, then overt and intentional double standards (also called racism) is justified. That must not exist in any true democracy.
There certainly are lots of players, wild cards, ideas about what democracy is, etc. Your truest remark here is about power. Everyone craves power, even the simple citizens, and they want "democracy", the power of self-determination. Those that might represent them, or lead them, or rule them, they have and want power too. And how much they are willing to share that power is the biggest unanswered question, that's what this struggle is about. For many, it is a matter of life and death. Some fight and die for their personal power, others are fighting for the chance that the sovereign power will reside with the people.tw;873488 wrote:If you did not learn about General Sisi, then you did not yet understand other wild cards in Egypt. Many players are at that poker table. Each with completely different ideas about what is democracy, if democracy really works, and what kind of power they crave.
General Sisi was even educated in Pennsylvania. One of the first things he did was purge the Army of supporters of the previous supreme commander. We may now be seeing why he did that.
.... Y'know, I've already held forth on this and so have others. I think sexobon gave the most generous answer, and I am reading the situation using the kinds of interpretations he discusses. I don't really care to twist your arm until you cry uncle, I know better than to try to extract some kind of retraction from you. As you said, let's focus on what's relevant.tw;873531 wrote:Racism was always about judging people only on first impressions. Racism was never only about race.
A white skinned and black skinned man can be of similar race. And still racism says they are different. Racism (as so many use the term) foolishly says two white men with major race differences are same. Again, judging only based upon first impressions rather than first learning the facts (ie DNA analysis).
Racism is any judgement based upon first impressions. Israel is an example. For example learn how they treat Eritrean refugees and other non-Jews from torture camps on Israel's border.
Hate based upon religion is only another example of racism. Democracies have no business associating religion with government. A democracy cannot exist when government and religion are same. Democracy demands that the emotional concept called religion be separate from the pragmatic concept called government. Unfortunately, the US government does not make that distinction when discussing democracies elsewhere.
glatt;873553 wrote:Yeah. I think bigotry is the action, prejudice is the attitude. Is racism both the attitude and the action?
Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1]from wikipedia. depending on the scale of government, it works pretty well, local, regional, state, etc. At the national level, things are much more distorted. The representation that actually happens at the federal level does not seem very uniformly connected to the "will of the people". At that distance, the relative strengths of the influence of individual voter's will and the influence of "political/PAC/interest group/lobbying" will is usually unbalanced strongly in favor of political/PAC/lobbyist groups, for the simple reason that money buys access. A given representative can't really pay attention to the voices of 50,000 people, the kind of population that a US House of Representatives representative (catchy name, eh?) represents. They just can't. So, they pay attention to the loudest voices, and money is a megaphone for that. The situation is even more dramatically illustrated in the Senate. Really? One senator can hear and understand the unified voice of x million people in a given state? or, half the population in the state? Really? I don't think so. The same problem exists for the Executive Branch. Just look around, lots of people say President ______ doesn't represent me. It's sad.
xoxoxoBruce;873599 wrote:In a democracy majority rules. In our republic, the minority have rights to protect them from the majority.
Undertoad;873543 wrote:Racism is about race. The term you are seeking is "prejudice".
It will not serve you to expand the definition of racism for your own personal purposes.
piercehawkeye45;873580 wrote:I've though of prejudice and discrimination as thoughts or actions of an individual while racism is more society. If so, the lines are very blurred.
tw;873604 wrote:... But again, the US government will not recommend that separation of church and state when encouraging another nation to become democratic. Not defining those principles up front has gotten US diplomacy boxed into a no-win situation in Egypt. ...
sexobon;873633 wrote:Americans think of lasting change as happening in 4 to 8 year iterations in consonance with our Presidential election cycle and term limitation. For others, lasting change may happen only over generations. Trying to segregate religion from their governments on our timetable may shock their core belief systems resulting in our ideology being summarily rejected. Change to that extent has to come from within; unless, we subjugate them for generations. They're not stupid, they already understand the underlying principles of our system. They also know that our system is only a 237 y.o. work in progress that still leaves a lot to be desired. Recognizing this is the situation, we choose to give them a taste of democracy by advocating free elections without making our support contingent upon the separation of church and state. Even if the resulting governments fail, the general population is learning more about the value of the right to self determination with each attempt. They'll get to a viable structure of government in their own time, despite setbacks, and maybe even come up with something better than ours! Unless of course you think we should just conquer them now.