Army crackdown in Egypt, hundreds dead

[Thanas]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-916665.html

The Horror of Cairo: Scenes of War Between Two Egypts

Horribly battered corpses lie in the streets, and there are more than 1,000 injured. The government sought to bring calm to Cairo by clearing the Morsi camps, but now the entire country is under a state of emergency. Residents fear a "war between two Egypts."



Dr. Mohammed Abdelazim wants me to take a very close look at the dead: the man whose eyes burst out of their sockets when he was shot in the head; the man whose guts are piled up on his stomach in red loops; the man with a bandaged chin and empty eyes staring into nothingness.

"You must look at them," the doctor tells the foreigner, who would rather look away. "You are a witness. You must tell the world what is happening here. After all, no one believes us," says the doctor, in his bloodstained T-shirt.

It is Wednesday afternoon in the courtyard of the Mustafa Mahmoud Mosque, in a neighborhood in Gizeh, near Cairo. Dozens of men crowd around the ground floor of an administrative building, where the dead lie between office chairs and desks. Inside, the air-conditioning is running at full blast, and still the air is filled with the stench of blood and fecal matter. A obese man is holding blue pieces of paper in his hand, which is balled into a fist. By his count, 19 dead have already been identified.

"Twelve have been taken away, and the others are being moved now," says the obese man, just as the crowd begins to chant "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," parting to allow men carrying a body on their shoulders to reach the exit. The dead man is one of the victims of a massacre that many in Cairo, Egypt and around the world have feared would happen for days.

Since the Egyptian military leadership announced on Sunday that it intended to clear the two large protest camps where supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood were protesting the ouster of former President Mohammed Morsi, it was clear that the country was heading toward a new bloodbath. After the military coup in early June, the security forces had repeatedly demonstrated that they had no qualms about using deadly force against the Islamists' supporters. The bloody clashes that have shaken Egypt since then had already claimed 200 lives when, at dawn on Wednesday, the police advanced on the two tent cities filled with Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

The Bloodiest Day in Recent Egyptian History

By sundown, it was still completely unclear how many more victims had been added to the death toll on Wednesday. The Health Ministry estimated 149 dead, while the Muslim Brotherhood reported much higher casualty numbers during the course of the day, including up to 2,000 dead. By evening, the United Nations estimated that the day's events had claimed several hundred lives.

It is doubtful whether it will ever be clear how many people lost their lives on this bloodiest day in Egypt's more recent history. During the course of the day, it became apparent that the two hostile camps in Egypt were reporting two diametrically opposed versions of the events. According to the army, the government it had installed and the media it controls, it was the Muslim Brotherhood supporters who, after their camps had been cleared, resisted the security forces with weapons, triggering the bloodshed. The Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, claims that the security forces mowed down two peaceful sit-ins, without concern for the loss of life, while soldiers fired at the crowd with tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition.

While the truth is somewhere in-between, hardly anyone questions that the army and police are responsible for the most deaths. Their claim that they had fired in self-defense is precarious. Although there are images showing civilians with guns, the army has yet to prove that the Muslim Brotherhood supporters used firearms in a coordinated and large-scale manner.

It doesn't matter to the Egyptian media, which toes the government line and reports what the leadership tells it to report, without asking questions. The Muslim Brotherhood must resort to the foreign media to portray its version of the events, which is why its members insist that reporters look at the bodies.

The army leadership, supported by the overwhelming majority of Egyptians, had hoped to rid itself of a lingering problem by storming the protest camps. But the plan has failed, at least for now. Instead of going home, the Morsi supporters occupied other, smaller squares in Cairo. And now the police and military are dealing with many smaller protests instead of two large sit-ins. The protests are already spreading to other cities, as the violence threatens to engulf the whole country.

"The War Begins Tonight"

In the evening, about 4,000 Morsi supporters, after being driven away from their sit-in in front of the nearby University of Cairo, had gathered in front of the Mustafa Mahmoud Mosque. The mosque is in Mohandessin, an upscale neighborhood oddly disfigured by the effects of the fighting. The treads of armored vehicles had torn up the asphalt in front of store that sells Whirlpool products. Shell casings from AK-47 assault rifles, used by the Egyptian police, littered the ground outside a jewelry shop. Sidewalks were covered with glass from broken windowpanes, interspersed with drying pools of blood. Exhausted men and weeping women sat in the shade. Many prayed and were trying to brace themselves for the coming night.

"The army and the police will return when it gets dark," says Mahmoud Lutfi, who had survived the fighting of the day by staying inside the high-end bath showroom where he works. The neighborhood's wealthy residents will certainly use their connections to prevent the Islamists from settling down in Mohandessin, says Lutfi, who identified himself as a Morsi supporter. "The war between the two Egypts begins tonight."

What I thought was going to happen sadly did happen.

[Ahriman238]

Well shit.

Anyone else remember that brief period when Morsi was out and Egypt was the shining hope for the Middle East?

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought it would turn to shit, which is why I was hoping in one of the earlier threads that the coup would fail. Morsi was an authoritarian-leaning, Islamist, inept asshole of an Egyptian President, but he was democratically elected, and he should have been pushed out in a democratic election by the opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood getting off their asses to campaign. But instead, the opposition took the shortcut and gave the military the opportunity they needed to re-take over the government, and now the latter isn't even doing the pretense of a civilian government well (they even reinstated the much-hated Emergency Law).

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Wasn't the whole issue that Morsi was headed towards there never being another election, or at least another real one?

[Edi]

The newspaper today said that one AFP reporter alone had counted 121 bodies in two morgues, so they government number of 149 cannot be accurate. We'll see how it goes, but it's not going to be pretty in the near future.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well shit.

Anyone else remember that brief period when Morsi was out and Egypt was the shining hope for the Middle East?

Not really. As my mom said (who lives in egypt part of the year), from the moment Morsi opened his mouth she thought he was a bastard. Some of the things he & his party tried to do was lower the age of consent from 18 to 9 amongst other things.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yeah, the moment Morsi got into power, Egypt was in a case of "Damned if you do damned if you don't"

If he HAD stayed in power, well, he was well on his way to turning Egypt into another Islamic Theocracy, as well as establishing him as a President for life type...

Of course taking him OUT Of power, we see the results of that now

[Siege]

Morsi was looking to be pretty much like every other autocrat from a country lacking an established democratic tradition. That isn't particularly pretty, but what you ought to do in a situation like that is engage in a dialog so that he knows he's not alone fighting a bureaucracy left by a former regime that's hostile to him.

What you probably shouldn't do is spin a military coup as a restoration of democracy. 'Cause, you know, it might give the army that you're handing over a billion dollars every year the idea that you're a-ok with their repression. Say, how's that working out for you, Mr. Kerry?

Morsi wasn't likeable, but he was democratically elected, and there weren't hundreds of bodies in the streets under his rule.

[Block]

Morsi wasn't likeable, but he was democratically elected, and there weren't hundreds of bodies in the streets under his rule.

Yet. It was well on its way to happening, along with a purge of Coptics.

[Broomstick]

Not to mention that reducing 51% of the population to walking wombs, sex toys, and housekeeping slaves, while not exactly "bodies in the street", is pretty damn disgusting. But let's face it, the "Muslim Brotherhood" along with all the other Muslim "parties" full of conservatives and "back to tradition" assholes want to bring that sort of thing to the entire world.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

What evidence do you have that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to apply these sorts of rules to everyone in the world? I don't much like them, but the idea that political Islam is composed of the Muslim extremist who wants to convert everyone to their belief at gunpoint is more a racist boogeyman than reality.

[Broomstick]

They're going to just stop at the borders of Egypt... right... That's why there are so many Muslims groups of similar ilk who interfere with other countries, who try to convert others to their mindset...

The "proof" you wait for is for another country to fall, and another, and another.... sorry, as one of those who would be chained to sexual and reproductive slavery by this sort of slime I don't intend to wait for that, and I don't trust them to stay within their own borders. I don't have a good answer for the problem, but really, what makes you think these people will just stop with Egypt?

Even if they did - that's several million human beings who would be locked down as the Taliban lock down women, unable to leave their homes unescorted, free for the raping if they do, unable to earn a living should a spouse die. Or don't they matter? I realize that there are a lot of men who are willing to throw half the population of a nation under the bus in the name of "stability" but I don't have to like it.

[Irbis]

Morsi was looking to be pretty much like every other autocrat from a country lacking an established democratic tradition. That isn't particularly pretty, but what you ought to do in a situation like that is engage in a dialog so that he knows he's not alone fighting a bureaucracy left by a former regime that's hostile to him.

Yes, what we got instead was people "saved" from themselves, never getting to regret their choices and change views. Now, Morsi can be a martyr instead of disgraced politician booted out of office in 4 years. Great going there.

What you probably shouldn't do is spin a military coup as a restoration of democracy. 'Cause, you know, it might give the army that you're handing over a billion dollars every year the idea that you're a-ok with their repression. Say, how's that working out for you, Mr. Kerry?

Yeah. Democracy in Egypt was pretty much ruined or set back 50 years by that. Good luck convincing anyone religious to vote now, or to lay down arms and engage in peaceful process instead of armed underground cells.

Morsi wasn't likeable, but he was democratically elected, and there weren't hundreds of bodies in the streets under his rule.

To everyone from outside of Europe/with short memory - you know, a lot of states in Central Europe picked absolute sleazeballs in 1989 in the wake of post-communist revolution, often as religious and scummy as Morsi. President of Poland, for fucks sake, was barely literate electrician with medieval Christian views. Fortunately, our people controlling military resigned instead of couping at that election, and in 1993, most of radical right wingers were booted out of parliament. Because people got to live 4 years through period without dictature and to ask themselves 'do we really want them in power'?

Guess what, it wasn't pretty of pleasant, as some really scummy laws left over can attest, but the way to get rid of people like Morsi is to have them disgraced by their own doing, not martyred. Funny that, after dictature falls, people usually vote for someone who was most unlike it, both in our case or Egypt's it were religious forces, only next election can tell if that is real trend or not.

They're going to just stop at the borders of Egypt... right... That's why there are so many Muslims groups of similar ilk who interfere with other countries, who try to convert others to their mindset...

*facepalm*

Can you say just how these evil Muslims differ from Christians? Because it looks like mirror image of what radical Muslims say. "These evil Christians are out to get us"! with the exception they can cite Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, next to which Arab Spring looks pathetic as an example of Evil Plot™.

The "proof" you wait for is for another country to fall, and another, and another.... sorry, as one of those who would be chained to sexual and reproductive slavery by this sort of slime I don't intend to wait for that, and I don't trust them to stay within their own borders. I don't have a good answer for the problem, but really, what makes you think these people will just stop with Egypt?

What made post-communist revolution stop on central Europe with our 'religion in schools' and 'abortion forbidden' laws?

And then, in an even more insidious and Evil Plot™ case, actually release grip and roll some back?

Even if they did - that's several million human beings who would be locked down as the Taliban lock down women, unable to leave their homes unescorted, free for the raping if they do, unable to earn a living should a spouse die. Or don't they matter? I realize that there are a lot of men who are willing to throw half the population of a nation under the bus in the name of "stability" but I don't have to like it.

*sigh*

You know, I was in Egypt. It might be hard to believe, but I walked the streets of Cairo, Pyramids, the whole thing. I went for a few long walks, just watching the streets, entering small shops, talking to people. It might be hard to believe, but here's the shocking truth: Egyptians, guess what, aren't gun-toting, turban-clad maniacs. They are diverse, multinational, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society that doesn't want second Afghanistan. They want to be like West. The thing is, they don't know how to get there. They turn to people promising them recipes, and, surprisingly, when you have dictator who doesn't want to let go of power, the only people with experience in running large non-state organization are church-tied, as it's the only thing that can't be banned or fully regulated. What, you expect western-style parties to spring up in country where you can ban parties? How?

And now, the part of the world they are envious of basically high-fives the military as it stomps on people's choice, big part of it, while loudly announcing message contradictory to what just happened. Do you really believe it will make them feel A) appreciated and take this valuable lesson to heart, B) betrayed, no longer target of emulation but instead a call to further radicalization, or C) pygmy?

[Thanas]

There has got to be another solution in a democracy than the Army moving in and shooting guys. Armies - contrary to what some people on this board believe - are not knights protecting democracy. They are tools of power and as such concerned with only that.

Morsi is a scumbag and shouldn't be in office. He also was probably going to turn into a religious dictator. But the way to remove him should have been a removal and then instant elections, not removal and "gotta clean up those religious folk before we have elections".

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

The "proof" you wait for is for another country to fall, and another, and another.... sorry, as one of those who would be chained to sexual and reproductive slavery by this sort of slime I don't intend to wait for that, and I don't trust them to stay within their own borders. I don't have a good answer for the problem, but really, what makes you think these people will just stop with Egypt?

The fact that both the proclaimed goal of the Muslim Brotherhood and the conclusion that makes the most sense with respect to the violence in the Middle East is that their endgame is the destruction of the European and American colonial legacy. That doesn't involve invading America and forcing us to obey their interpretation of the Quran. Hell, even the most fanciful goal preached by people who follow the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is to unify the Muslim world, not to unify the world under Islam.

You know, I was in Egypt. It might be hard to believe, but I walked the streets of Cairo, Pyramids, the whole thing. I went for a few long walks, just watching the streets, entering small shops, talking to people. It might be hard to believe, but here's the shocking truth: Egyptians, guess what, aren't gun-toting, turban-clad maniacs. They are diverse, multinational, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society that doesn't want second Afghanistan. They want to be like West. The thing is, they don't know how to get there. They turn to people promising them recipes, and, surprisingly, when you have dictator who doesn't want to let go of power, the only people with experience in running large non-state organization are church-tied, as it's the only thing that can't be banned or fully regulated. What, you expect western-style parties to spring up in country where you can ban parties? How?

Are you so sure about the typical Egyptian wanting to be just like "the West"? It's a common and comforting idea that everyone in the world wants to be just like the US or France or Canada or whatever, they just don't know how or don't have the means, but I'm not sure how much that bears with reality. The success of various forms of political Islam in the Middle East seems to be an indication that (not all, but) many people there don't want a secular, Western-liberal government copied from the US or UK or anywhere else. That's not to say they're aiming for Talibanesque societies, either, but the governments and societies of the North Atlantic and Pacific aren't the only end goal to strive for.

[Thanas]

A great piece about the power players in Egypt.

[PeZook]

Are you so sure about the typical Egyptian wanting to be just like "the West"? It's a common and comforting idea that everyone in the world wants to be just like the US or France or Canada or whatever, they just don't know how or don't have the means, but I'm not sure how much that bears with reality. The success of various forms of political Islam in the Middle East seems to be an indication that (not all, but) many people there don't want a secular, Western-liberal government copied from the US or UK or anywhere else. That's not to say they're aiming for Talibanesque societies, either, but the governments and societies of the North Atlantic and Pacific aren't the only end goal to strive for.

I think it's more "we want to be prosperous, secure and free to do business" more than "we want to copy all Western institutions". And that's the problem, because Westerners get uncomfortable when these people do something differently, espouse different values and such: I've seen people convinced, utterly convinced, that it's a result of some grand conspiracy of radical Muslims to create a domino effect.

Sure, a lot of the local culture sucks, especially the conservative elements. But really, we're not going to set them "straight" with bombs and missiles and western-backed coups to ensure democracy rings true in the Middle East. It's been tried...oh, how it's been tried, there and in Latin America and elsewhere and the result is always nothing but human misery.

[K. A. Pital]

Wait, guys, are you seriously saying that so-called moderate Islamist parties have not been assassinating secular opponents (like in Tunisia, where two left-wing secular leaders - Chokri Belaid and Mohammed Brahmi - have been assassinated in the timeframe of a year or so)? And that Egypt before the current military repressions has been calm and safe for people of all political brands? The burning heart of Port-Said disagrees - and so do I. And it is not as if secularists were living in a paradise under Morsi. Alber Saber got three years for - yes, guys, atheism - when infuriated Muslims in Egypt were looking for a sacrificial lamb after that "Innocence" film. Even though it was not found that Saber even posted a link to that film or whatnot, he was still jailed for "extremism" and - just fucking think about it - insulting Muhammad, Jesus, Mary, Gabriel, and God himself. That's right - in Egypt you can go to jail for insulting imaginary entities.

As for the Army, they are no better than many Ba'athist and Arab Nationalist secular dictators, a large share of which had a lot of blood on their hands for sure, and Egypt is fucked, since they are locked between a hammer and an anvil. Ba'athism is dying since it has bred only corrupt state-capitalist societies that operated under curfew or constant surveillance; and even though they had a veneer of progressive laws, which were even enforced, under that religious backwardness was boiling hot in the villages, the mosques, the outskirts of huge towns which still lived according to tradition.

And no, democracy is no panacea. There can be a nominally democratic one-party state, and there can be a nominally democratic, even with complete fulfillment of all relevant procedures, religious and even theocratic state. Certainly the success of HAMAS against secular forces in the Palestine should've told people something about the merits of democracy. Secularism is not a byproduct of democracy per se but a byproduct of progress. Attempts to enforce it without changing the basis of society, without industrializing the economy and changing the relations in the very far-off villages and towns, are more often than not fruitless or require serious violence to succeed.

[PeZook]

How are you going to ensure a military coup won't turn into a military dictatorship, though? You just...can't, and if anything it's military solutions that radicalize people and make them flock over to these religious groups that are the only ones powerful enough (or SEEN as powerful enough) to actually challenge the military. The success of HAMAS is party a result of the ongoing conflict with Israel, after all.

[K. A. Pital]

I am not saying a military coup won't turn into a dictatorship - most likely it would, the only weird counterexample is Portugal.


But it is also true that secularists on their own can't defeat the MB and their way more extreme religious allies. So they chose to rely on the power of the military (no one knows what sort of a hellish choice that was, and I can't say when walking in their shoes I wouldn't have made the same mistake), and now some of them are regretting it - like El Baradei, who chose to step down.

[Siege]

Wait, guys, are you seriously saying that so-called moderate Islamist parties have not been assassinating secular opponents (like in Tunisia, where two left-wing secular leaders - Chokri Belaid and Mohammed Brahmi - have been assassinated in the timeframe of a year or so)?

Hold on a second. Surely you are not claiming that these assassinations were the work of the Islamist parties in Tunisia? We might not agree on their politics but even they themselves (and the Muslim Brotherhood, I should point out) have decried the assassinations; and just because some Islamists are sufficiently radicalized to carry out political killings doesn't mean they are endorsed by the parties that happen to share (some of) their political beliefs.

Just because Lee Harvey Oswald had communist sympathies doesn't mean we place the blame for JFK's death on CPUSA. Guilt by association is a fallacy for a good reason -- I would argue that the broad-brushed painting of vast social movements as murderous thugs is one of the causes for the very issue we're discussing here. 'Cause if our opponents are the barbarians at the gates of civilization, well, then it suddenly might not seem so wrong to set the army on them, right?

[Broomstick]

They're going to just stop at the borders of Egypt... right... That's why there are so many Muslims groups of similar ilk who interfere with other countries, who try to convert others to their mindset...

Can you say just how these evil Muslims differ from Christians? Because it looks like mirror image of what radical Muslims say. "These evil Christians are out to get us"! with the exception they can cite Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, next to which Arab Spring looks pathetic as an example of Evil Plot™.

The "evil Muslims" as you put it aren't all Muslims - I keep forgetting how stupid and polarizing people like to be here so I have to constantly repeat it's certain Muslims, not all Muslims. Which is why I compared the Muslim Brotherhood to the Taliban and not, say, the local mosque in my area which very much has a live and let live attitude. And those sorts of "evil" Muslims really aren't much different than the whackjob "evil" Christians who want to put their religion ahead of all others, go back to conversion by the sword, and so forth. They, too, want to constrain women solely to the roles of mother, sex toy, and house-keeping robot and I object just as strenuously to them. The difference is, there have been far fewer killing by them in recent years than by "evil" Muslims. (There have been Christian terrorists, most incidents I recall involved gunning down doctors who perform abortions)

People who think that a woman out in public who disagrees with them is fair game for rape and deserves it certainly aren't what I'd call "good".

The "proof" you wait for is for another country to fall, and another, and another.... sorry, as one of those who would be chained to sexual and reproductive slavery by this sort of slime I don't intend to wait for that, and I don't trust them to stay within their own borders. I don't have a good answer for the problem, but really, what makes you think these people will just stop with Egypt?

What made post-communist revolution stop on central Europe with our 'religion in schools' and 'abortion forbidden' laws?

And then, in an even more insidious and Evil Plot™ case, actually release grip and roll some back?

It's quite natural for the social pendulum to swing back and forth. What happened in Eastern Europe, while understandable if not laudable, didn't devolve into a civil war in most places (Yugoslavia being a notable exception) which is where Egypt is heading.

Even if they did - that's several million human beings who would be locked down as the Taliban lock down women, unable to leave their homes unescorted, free for the raping if they do, unable to earn a living should a spouse die. Or don't they matter? I realize that there are a lot of men who are willing to throw half the population of a nation under the bus in the name of "stability" but I don't have to like it.

You know, I was in Egypt. It might be hard to believe, but I walked the streets of Cairo, Pyramids, the whole thing. I went for a few long walks, just watching the streets, entering small shops, talking to people. It might be hard to believe, but here's the shocking truth: Egyptians, guess what, aren't gun-toting, turban-clad maniacs. They are diverse, multinational, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society that doesn't want second Afghanistan. They want to be like West. The thing is, they don't know how to get there.

That used to be what Afghanistan was like - a law-abiding society where people could walk the streets in reasonable safety, where women used to be educated and many worked in professions outside the home, including high status ones like medicine where they were doctors. Now -- women have to huddle under burkas whether they want to or not, in Taliban areas they aren't allowed to work outside the home, and school girls are under threat of attack or death for the "crime" of education. It, too, is a multi-ethnic nation, in fact, it's multi-ethnic enough that no one group is the majority (the largest group, Pashtun, is slightly over 40%). Most of them aren't "gun-toting, turban-clad maniacs", either, and would much prefer to be left in peace but unfortunately the Taliban is not live-and-let-live, they insist on expansion and conversion. But most don't remember the peaceful Afghanistan, not the least because they aren't old enough to have direct memories of it. Afghanistan was never a first world or Westernized nation but used to be a damn sight better than it is now.

Yes, my post was an emotional reaction but I'm not going to apologize for being appalled at the chaos and death going on in Egypt.

And, frankly, your "I've walked the streets of Egypt and felt safe" reminds me very much of a long-ago poster who stated that a woman could walk the streets in Belgium in perfect safety and I stated that I, too, had been to Belgium and very much did not feel that was the case and usually traveled with a group even in the daytime, and certainly after dark so my personal experience differed (see here, scroll down for the relevant posts). If your experience in Egypt was positive that's fantastic for you, but other tourists have been targeted simply because they're tourists.

What, you expect western-style parties to spring up in country where you can ban parties? How?

I guess you blazed past where I stated I don't have a good answer for these sorts of circumstances. I'm no longer convinced that a western-style democracy is viable for all countries. There are still existing examples of authoritarian governments - monarchies by one name or another - in Middle Eastern nations that are more stable and arguably less abusive than, say, the Taliban (which is not to say they're paradise, they also have some major flaws). Saudi Arabia, for example, has many customs and practices I find reprehensible but women are allowed education, they are allowed to work even if choices are limited, and they don't seem to have any expansionist tendencies other than funding propaganda for their variety of Islam abroad. I'd rather have an absolute monarchy like the Sauds than one overturned election after another, riots, rapes, and the chaos that seems to be brewing in Egypt right now. That's not because I think a monarchy is ideal or even desirable (I don't), but because a relatively benign despot has advantages over local warlords and endless violent conflict.

And now, the part of the world they are envious of basically high-fives the military as it stomps on people's choice, big part of it, while loudly announcing message contradictory to what just happened.

I find that just as disgusting as anyone else here. Nowhere in my posts in this thread have I expressed support for the military coup (which, protests to the contrary, is exactly what it was).

Although I despise the Muslim Brotherhood I would have been happy to, as others have said, see Morisi serve his term in office and be voted out at the end of it. If Morisi had been willing to abide by that - whether or not he would have will never be truly known now. On the other hand, Morisi setting himself up to be president-for-life and imposing a version of Islam I find toxic and despicable is not something I would want to see. Was the military actually preventing the latter or not? Well, one reason I read threads like this is to try to figure questions like that out.

The US really does see the radical Muslims - the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc - as enemies, not in least because those groups have declared they are the enemies of the US. The US government does not see Morisi/Muslim Brotherhood in power in their best interests, hence the applauding of a coup. Which is a problem because the US government is also supposed to be against coups. Damnably awkward when democracy elects someone who hates the US (see Iran) and the US stops it's incessant cheer-leading of democracy to go "... um... er..." Of course, elections can be rigged (see Chicago history) but it's also possible for a non-rigged election to choose someone other nations don't approve of. We've got too many assholes in the US government who are gonzo to force their own version of change on others, keeping them under control is a constant struggle as as Iraq shows that effort is not always successful.

[K. A. Pital]

Just because some Islamists are sufficiently radicalized to carry out political killings doesn't mean they are endorsed by the parties that happen to share (some of) their political beliefs.

I think they are quietly thankful for the murders which can be blamed on radicals - where has the investigation led, if anywhere at all? Their popular opponents die, clearing the field for electoral battles in the future (death is permanent and the ultimate defeat). And it is not just these murders across the Maghreb - I already elaborated on Alber Saber's case, but there are more instances of secular-minded politicians and outspoken criticis of Islamism in Egypt proper being beaten and physically abused by mobs which, of course, neither of the Islamist parties claims are related to them.

Cause if our opponents are the barbarians at the gates of civilization, well, then it suddenly might not seem so wrong to set the army on them, right?

It is still wrong, I would argue, out of humanitarian reasons. I described the folly of Egypt's secularists as a clear mistake just one post above - relying on the Army to relieve MB of power was a blunder. Unavoidable in the heated atmosphere of Cairo feuds, perhaps, but still a blunder.

It is perhaps an extremely discomforting thought to me that one can be a witness to the so-called peaceful subversion and erosion of the secular state, and maybe I am therefore not impartial to the situation. But Russia seems to have a great deal in common with Turkey and Egypt in the way the democratically elected leaders subvert the process to erode the Church-State separation that usually remains from a previous epoch.

Maybe you think that creeping peaceful Islamization or Christianization is not a threat so as long as democratic procedures are not compromised directly. But Turkey's Erdogan has not compromised them: he is, much like Russia's Putin, representing a more dangerous brand of anti-progressive forces. Those which fully agree to play by the rules, those which assemble a majority of poorly educated people to elect them, and then once in power proceed to introduce, slowly and accurately, not like in Iran or Afghanistan, religious normatives into the law of the nation.

In the end creeping onslaught of religion seems to be bloodless and safe. After all, hundreds of people are not dying in Russia either, right? And not in Turkey, too. But in Russia you can now go to jail for "insulting" the feelings of religious believers, which may include anti-government protests that also criticize the Orthodox Church, atheist ramblings on a web blog which is by law a form of mass media in the nation and many other niceties. Next came the anti-gay law, and now the IOC is behaving like a pussy - look, they're not banning gays, right? They're just banning the right of gays to express their views on sexuality, like wearing certain type of clothes or speaking out in favor of gay rights on television. And Orthodox, neo-monarchist and neo-Nazi mobs get a free hand at attacking those the most vulnerable, since these laws demonstrate a general vector of state policy.

Let me remind you that all of this is done in a democratic nation, arguably with democratic mechanisms way more mature than Egypt's, which are tightly controlled by SCAF.

My experience as a national of a country which underwent this creeping religious revival may be very different from citizens of Western Europe or the USA which just see the struggle between religious parties and secular parties as a legitimate struggle between equally good ideas of government.

It is even harder to defend your beliefs when you are clearly the minority. Secularists and liberal Muslims who are against Sharia law even in the watered-down verison Morsi is preaching, are the minority. Secularists in Russia are also the minority. And in Turkey too. Their opponents have won fair and square - okay, maybe a bit of intimidation and beating here and there, maybe a bit of mobilization of a unified voter army as opposed to fracturing alliances of left-wingers, secular liberals and religious moderates - but they have won using the democratic mechanism. If only a bit they have stepped into the wrong territory, only slightly behaved in a dictatorial fashion.

It is in this situation where I find myself and other like-minded people all across the world. Folks I know from Turkey are desperate - defeating AKP at the ballot box seems downright impossible, considering Erdogan's political and economic successes and his neo-Ottomanism which appeals to provincial voters greatly. Maybe Egypt's atheists and secularists are even more desperate and they made an error - a pact with the devil.

But what I wanted to underscore is that creeping triumph of religious parties is in no way less dangerous than fullscale theocracy a-la Iran. It just takes them more time to take the necessary laws, to make sure opression looks watered-down and acceptable to the international community and that the ones punished are isolated and can't really challenge them at the ballot. That's all.

I disagree with Broomstick's rash statements about MB becoming Taliban in a short order. No. They would have created an Islamic version of Russia very likely. Which is not as bad, but pretty horrible to me.

[Ralin]

The "proof" you wait for is for another country to fall, and another, and another.... sorry, as one of those who would be chained to sexual and reproductive slavery by this sort of slime I don't intend to wait for that, and I don't trust them to stay within their own borders. I don't have a good answer for the problem, but really, what makes you think these people will just stop with Egypt?

Remember that whole thing about how if we didn't stop communism in Vietnam it would spread to Thailand and the rest of Southeast Asia, and then India and then next then we knew they'd be knocking on the door in Hawai'i?

Yeah.

[Broomstick]

The "proof" you wait for is for another country to fall, and another, and another.... sorry, as one of those who would be chained to sexual and reproductive slavery by this sort of slime I don't intend to wait for that, and I don't trust them to stay within their own borders. I don't have a good answer for the problem, but really, what makes you think these people will just stop with Egypt?

The fact that both the proclaimed goal of the Muslim Brotherhood and the conclusion that makes the most sense with respect to the violence in the Middle East is that their endgame is the destruction of the European and American colonial legacy. That doesn't involve invading America and forcing us to obey their interpretation of the Quran. Hell, even the most fanciful goal preached by people who follow the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is to unify the Muslim world, not to unify the world under Islam.

Would your benign view also include those Muslims who argue that because Spain was once under Muslim rule it should be put under Muslim rule again?

Would it also include those who want to impose Sharia in countries that have historically never been Muslim, either for all or "just" as a separate legal system for their community, contrary to the notion that the law should apply equally to all?

And even if the Muslim Brotherhood just want to confine themselves to Egypt, their notion that a woman who disagrees with them and appears in public is fair game for gang rape and somehow deserves it puts them into the "evil" category for me. That's leaving aside the who clitoris removal thing, which I suppose it's possible they don't agree with as I haven't reserached their position on that particular issue but so far I haven't been impressed with how "benign" these guys are.