[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Monkei

How about an atheist president?

I believe an atheist president would be much preferable to a religious fanatic. Don't confuse atheism with amorality. (And I am not an atheist, nor have I played one on TV.)

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Monkei

How do we square up the notion of a democratic Egypt with an elected official with support for a military takeover against that same elected official? Can we be the standards for democracy and then within a couple of years abandon those standards.

My understanding of the situation was that Morsi was a closet religious fanatic when he ran for office. He talked a good talk, and then after he was elected ran a constitution through in a couple of days that pretty much defied any notion of democracy. Suddenly the people realized they'd been hoodwinked. Has happened in every country.

Now they are trying to right the situation. Maybe not in the best way. The slaughtering of protesters is definitely not democratic. Who knows where this will go.

[wendyquat]

[QUOTE=CFrance;728203]My understanding of the situation was that Morsi was a closet religious fanatic when he ran for office. He talked a good talk, and then after he was elected ran a constitution through in a couple of days that pretty much defied any notion of democracy. Suddenly the people realized they'd been hoodwinked.

You mean that can REALLY happen? Imagine that!

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by CFrance

I believe an atheist president would be much preferable to a religious fanatic. Don't confuse atheism with amorality. (And I am not an atheist, nor have I played one on TV.)

Yes, but I think that is inadvertently setting up a straw man / false choice between two extremes ...

How about instead someone who is a reasonably moral / religious man (or woman) and a product of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Yes, but I think that is inadvertently setting up a straw man / false choice between two extremes ...

How about instead someone who is a reasonably moral / religious man (or woman) and a product of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

Case by case.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

Yes, but I think that is inadvertently setting up a straw man / false choice between two extremes ...

How about instead someone who is a reasonably moral / religious man (or woman) and a product of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

I think that is entirely what we have had e last 45 times.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Monkei

How do we square up the notion of a democratic Egypt with an elected official with support for a military takeover against that same elected official? Can we be the standards for democracy and then within a couple of years abandon those standards.

We cannot !!!

This was a coup by any definition, and we should call it that and go from there.

I realize nothing is quite that simple, especially in the mideast, but it is what it is.....I am amazed that we continue to fund this coup. We are ignoring killing any many countries of the mideast and now this....am very confused.

Not talking politics here because I do not think anyone has any easy solutions for this, but at least lets be honest about it.

You are right, we cannot simply change our definitions....this was a military coup.

[billethkid]

how about a premise that the religion just happens to be a secondary issue. The primary is MAN....regardless their religion or politics the common denominator is MAN. Who will do what he wants to do to rule the world, his town, his group......who oh by the way happens to be black, white, muslim, racist, etc.

Their success or not is a function of whether sufficient lemmings or fear or both follow his lead.

And then of course there is the colorization of it all by the media to make it to be what ever will get one to tune in to their horn.

MAN is the culprit without a doubt.

btk

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by billethkid

how about a premise that the religion just happens to be a secondary issue. The primary is MAN....regardless their religion or politics the common denominator is MAN. Who will do what he wants to do to rule the world, his town, his group......who oh by the way happens to be black, white, muslim, racist, etc.

Their success or not is a function of whether sufficient lemmings or fear or both follow his lead.

And then of course there is the colorization of it all by the media to make it to be what ever will get one to tune in to their horn.

MAN is the culprit without a doubt.

btk

I can agree with that because religion was invented by man.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Monkei

I can agree with that because religion was invented by man.

Trying to get back on subject......does anyone object to this being called a coup ? Knowing the consequences and possible consequences ?

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Trying to get back on subject......does anyone object to this being called a coup ? Knowing the consequences and possible consequences ?

by definition it certainly is a coup (coup de tate)....the people in the area call it a coup....most Eeuropeans call it a coup.....
It is only the USA politicians that are calling it something else to suit their needs/agenda...and of course the followers do likewise.

btk

[Golfingnut]

They have had issues over their for thousands of years, just that now we have better media capabilities.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by billethkid

by definition it certainly is a coup (coup de tate)....the people in the area call it a coup....most Eeuropeans call it a coup.....
It is only the USA politicians that are calling it something else to suit their needs/agenda...and of course the followers do likewise.

btk

Correct x 10

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Trying to get back on subject......does anyone object to this being called a coup ? Knowing the consequences and possible consequences ?

It was a coup no doubt but that was not the original subject, was it?

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Monkei

It was a coup no doubt but that was not the original subject, was it?

Well the question was..who is right and who is wrong in what is happening in Egypt.

I think you and I agree a coup took place....but we are not calling it such. The coup was against the Muslim brotherhood who was elected in a surprise.

We got ourselves in a jam on this, with more to come I am afraid. As one of our politicians said recently....we HAD influence..did not use it. Time to call it what is...a coup and cut off the money. Will cause different problems but I do not think we want to be seen backing a coup, especially in the ME