Media reports

[carrie]

Listening to BBC Radio 4 today, it was stated that Pres Morsi was elected with more than 60 per cent of the votes cast. I thought that it was barely above 50%, the BBC and other stations keep reiterating that he was a democratically elected President. Yes he was, but what was the alternative, a man who represented the "old regime" of Pres Mubarak.
No mention of the fact that Morsi announced that he was standing as a secularist candidate, he was no longer a member of the MB. It was due to the actions of the Morsi introducing a rushed Islamic constitution, dismissing the democatically elected Parliamentarians that led to the present crises. I'm not having a go at the BBC because I find all the reporting from all the media contradictory and often misleading, what do we do watch everything and take it all with a pinch of snuff or decide which side we are supporting and ignore everything that is reported that is not in accordance with our pre conceived views?
I for one have had some very disturbing emails and messages from friends and family they have been watching reports and think the country is on the verge of civil war. I have had to assure them that I am perfectly safe and am taking care.

[BBLUX]

I have almost given up on the BBC and al Jazzera for their biased reporting. Euronews seems more balanced.
We also are getting emails of concern from those in the UK who only have the BBC biased content to watch!

[TAL777]

BBC News isn't worth listening to. France 24 I find is a good alternative to Al-Jazeera.

Ok Morsi was bent and corrupt (give me one Third World leader who isn't), but does that vindicate hundreds of people being slaughtered?

[jewel]

I find the Internet is most informative, and there's nowt wrong with ITV news, you get a good unbiased report, although it end to listen to reports from a wide range for a more balanced view. Also twitter is fairly informative if you are selective.
From what I remember Mohamed Morsi was elected with 57.7% of the votes, but he WAS democratically elected, and represented a move away from the old regime, but now it looks as though it may be here to stay.

[Zooropa]

Listening to BBC Radio 4 today, it was stated that Pres Morsi was elected with more than 60 per cent of the votes cast. I thought that it was barely above 50%, the BBC and other stations keep reiterating that he was a democratically elected President. Yes he was, but what was the alternative, a man who represented the "old regime" of Pres Mubarak.
No mention of the fact that Morsi announced that he was standing as a secularist candidate, he was no longer a member of the MB. It was due to the actions of the Morsi introducing a rushed Islamic constitution, dismissing the democatically elected Parliamentarians that led to the present crises. I'm not having a go at the BBC because I find all the reporting from all the media contradictory and often misleading, what do we do watch everything and take it all with a pinch of snuff or decide which side we are supporting and ignore everything that is reported that is not in accordance with our pre conceived views?
I for one have had some very disturbing emails and messages from friends and family they have been watching reports and think the country is on the verge of civil war. I have had to assure them that I am perfectly safe and am taking care.

Forget the percentages, he was democratically elected!

In my opinion, as bad as he was the day he was removed was a bad day for democracy.

Yes I do not live there, yes I do not have to put up with/had to put up with his rule but that does not alter the facts.

How are the people of Egypt going to learn about democracy if they think they have a right to remove someone by appealing to the army when he turns out to be just like all the other politicians?

So he promised he was going to be secular and he wasn't, he is a politician, spin/lying is what they do.

I voted for David Cameron because I thought he was a conservative!

Im not surprised you had worried phone calls, you live in a country where the army have just killed hundreds of protesters!

I very much hope there is not a civil war, if this wonderful Egyptian army can shoot people for pitching a tent and protesting then what would they do to someone taking up arms?

Its speculation of course but I fancy if July 1st had not have happened there would probably be the best part of a thousand plus extra people alive in Egypt today.

[timetraveller]

The problem as I see it is that a democratic election does not guarantee a democratic government! Morsi was democratically elected (just about) but it was Hobson's choice for the electorate. They effectively had to choose between two unfavourable options - a hardline Islamist and a remnant of the old and very much vilified Mubarak regime.

Morsi won by a slim margin but the majority of the electorate soon began to realise that they had been sold short. They realised that they had not made a step towards democracy and 'freedom' but had elected another dictator, who was giving every appearance of becoming an Islamic despot. Couple this with total ineptitude with regard to politics, economics and diplomatic relations and Morsi soon came to be seen as a liability and a laughing stock. In the local shops they were joking, but with bitter undertones. If you asked why the power was off or why there was no this or that you got the same reply 'Manager Morsi!'

And the man on the street suffered. Frequent and prolongued power cuts, fuel shortages and rising prices made an already difficult life almost intolerable for many. Morsi stepped onto the slippery slope though when he tried to disempower the judiciary and tailor the constitution so that he was unchallengeable. Hardly democratic! Replacing existing officials, like Governors with his MB cronies didn't go down well either. Particularly the 'terrorist governor' he appointed for Luxor!

And as to his downfall? Well all this talk of a Coup ignores the basic fact that Morsi was ousted because a huge proportion of the population decided that they were no longer prepared to tolerate the intolerable. And why would they? Egyptians are new to Democracy and they can't be expected to understand the concept as well as those who have grown up in a culture where democratic principles are well established. It's very easy for Europeans to say that Morsi should have been allowed to serve his term of office and then been voted out, as democracy demands. But he had over three years left to serve and the economy was in freefall. Most western democracies can suffer an unpopular leader for that long without irreparable damage to their economy. I'm not sure that Egypt could have. After three years of economic mismanagement there might not have been much of Egypt left to squabble over!

And a handful of young people gave them a mouthpiece. At the beginning May the Tamarod movement started a petition, a 'vote of no confidence' . It spread like wildfire and far more people signed it than had voted Morsi in. And two months later they were on the streets in their millions demanding his resignation. Now, the salient point. Did the Army force them there, were they coerced? No. Did Sisi and the other Generals just decide of their own volition that they were going to stage a coup and depose their president? No. They responded to popular demand. And made it clear that they are only involved temporarily, during the transition to a newly elected civilian Government.

But was it wrong to depose a democratically elected President even if he had no respect for the principles of democracy? Maybe, maybe not. Unconstitutional? Well, yes. But it's also worth considering that the constitution made no provision for the removal of a failing or otherwise unsuitable President. Most constitutions do. Despite Obama's disapproval he is forgetting that the USA have used 'impeachment' to get rid of Presidents in the past. Nixon for one. And they tried it with Clinton for supposedly lying about his little sexual indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky. But he was able and popular and they didn't get away with that!

[Zooropa]

There is also another thing connected with democracy thet the Egyptian military (at any rate) don't seem to understand and that is the right to protest without being shot dead.

Whilst Europeans have lived and grown up with democracy, that is not the only mechanism for understanding it.

I understand very well the concept and workings of Communism and Fascism and ive never lived under either.

Anyone who is politically aware and lives in the UK will also be able to currently relate to the lack of political choice in Egypt.

The same situation exists in the UK.

There were also mass protest when Nixon resigned but there was no resulting massacre.

I think the following statistic highlights the extreme nature of this situation.

In the period of 30 years of "the troubles" in Ireland it is estimated that around 1850 civilians were killed.

After just 6 weeks the death toll in Egypt is already 60 to 70% of that total.

[timetraveller]

There is a right to peaceful protest. But the pro-Morsi protesters were not peaceful, just maintaining a pretence of being so. They had guns and weapons and were using them. There is ample video footage to support this. The MB who have apparently 'renounced violence' are now wreaking havoc in Alexandria and Sinai and attacking Copts and their Churches and property countrywide. Shia's have also been attacked and even their fellow Sunni's who are anti-Morsi dismissed as 'infidels'. And the murders of the Police have been simply barbaric.

They were given ample time to 'peacefully' protest. Six weeks! And they were causing inconvenience and disruption to the local population. Very few countries democratic or otherwise would allow their capital to be thus compromised indefinately. However strongly the Turkish Islamist leader Erdogan condemns the 'massacre' he forgets that he was severe enough with the protesters in Taksim Square a few months ago! They were tear-gassed and water-cannoned. If the Turkish forces stopped short of shooting protesters I imagine that it was simply because it did not prove necessary. And the protestors against Fracking in England? Peaceful, yes. But dispersed nevertheless.

Moreover the protesters were given ample warning of the dispersal and they were told in no uncertain terms that violent resistance would be met with force. They did not need to die. They were free to leave and the vast majority did just that. But the hardline extremists insisted that they were ready to give their lives as Martyrs for Morsi. They were equally prepared to put forward innocent children for Martyrdom! Well, now some of them have got their wish!

A death toll or approximately 500 is not negligable and it is of course regrettable. But considering the number of protesters there were- hundreds of thousands maybe? it is much lower than might be imagined. And I wouldn't mind betting that the police weren't responsible for all of those fatalities either!

[jewel]

TT you may contend that the protestors were not peaceful, others would have a different viewpoint, and taken out of context this could be manipulated to any ends, but the facts are many innocent protestors were massacred.
The whole situation in Egypt is a mess, and once again it is in the grip of the old regime, and military law, which is where it is likely to remain, with army generals acting as governors in most areas.

I think that one of the best appraisals I have read on the situation is by Khaled about el Fadl.

Democracy is not founded upon the principle of safeguarding the rights of the popular, but upon the safeguarding the rights of the most unpopular. What so many Egyptians are forgetting is that the same public interest that justified the overthrow and persecution of one political party today will tomorrow justify the persecution of anyone who questions the centers of power in Egypt -- the same two powers that have for long held themselves above accountability and above the law and above any process, and ultimately, above the Egyptian people themselves. These two powers are one, the Egyptian military and security forces, and two, the ideologically charged Egyptian judiciary. The secularists are deluded in thinking that they achieved a resounding victory against the Islamists. Sadly, they only succeeded in demonstrating that they excel in the rhetoric of civic values and rights, but rely on military repression to safeguard their privileges and elitist status. The only victorious party in this tragedy is the old regime with all its brutality, corruption and hypocrisy.

The Egyptian army claims that it was forced to overthrow a legitimately elected president because it was merely giving effect to the will of the Egyptian people. It is true that most Egyptians hated Morsi's inept government and most Egyptians rejoiced when he was overthrown. But most of these people are forgetting basic facts that do not bode well for the future.

Nasser of Egypt, Asad of Syria, Saddam of Iraq, and Khomeini of Iran share one thing. All of them pointed to enthusiasts and supporters that filled the streets of their respective countries as their source of legitimacy, and all perpetuated autocratic rule in the name of the will of the people. Last week, the Egyptian army stepped in to remove an unpopular president, but in doing so it reaffirmed a very old despotic tradition in the Middle East. Army officers decide what the country needs at a certain point in time, and they always know best.

Traditionally, there have been two powers in Egypt that have considered themselves above accountability and that have long suffered from a patriarchal outlook over citizens and their best interests. In Egypt, these powers are the military and the judiciary. Both are staunchly secularist, dictatorial, and corrupt, and refuse to answer to any civilian power. Currently, in post-revolutionary Egypt, simply criticizing the military or insulting an officer is a criminal offense. Likewise, criticizing the judiciary, or even commenting on a judicial decision is a criminal offense.

Both the military and judiciary are thoroughly elitist, privileged, and firmly rooted in the old regime, which Mubarak anchored over 30 years. The military assured the U.S. and world that it does not plan to intervene in politics after overthrowing an elected president. But at the same time, the military is unlawfully issuing orders banning Morsi's supporters from leaving the country and reportedly arresting others on charges such as "insulting the judiciary," "criticizing the military," "endangering national security," "disrupting national unity." Keeping with the utter lack of judicial independence in Egypt, all charged will likely be convicted. At the same time, the same judiciary failed to convict people in the Mubarak regime who tortured, murdered, and robbed the country dry.

Soon after the coup, the military called upon all Egyptians to come together, forget their differences, not to retaliate or seek vengeance and many other lofty principles. At the same moment, the military failed to show any regard for the basic principles of the rule of law. It arrested members of the Muslim Brotherhood and of Morsi's political party for sedition and advocating violence, but conveniently failed to arrest any of the people responsible for burning the buildings of the Muslim Brotherhood or even investigating the multiple occasions in which Morsi's supporters were gunned down in the full view and presence of the military and security forces.

So many so-called liberals are praising the military for upholding personal freedoms while blissfully ignoring the fact that one of the first acts of the military was to close down without even the color of legality all media that the military, in its infinite wisdom, decided is a danger to the public order. This, of course, includes Al Jazeera channel, which was not only closed down in Egypt but whose workers have been arrested and are reportedly being subjected to a well-orchestrated campaign of threats and terror by the brutal Egyptian amn al-dawla (the security forces)..........


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/khaled-ab ... 68556.html

[Bombay]

Sorry for a previous staunch supporter of the BBC I would suggest they change thier name to the MBBC one word being Brotherhood you work out the rest

[Zooropa]

There is a right to peaceful protest. But the pro-Morsi protesters were not peaceful, just maintaining a pretence of being so. They had guns and weapons and were using them. There is ample video footage to support this. The MB who have apparently 'renounced violence' are now wreaking havoc in Alexandria and Sinai and attacking Copts and their Churches and property countrywide. Shia's have also been attacked and even their fellow Sunni's who are anti-Morsi dismissed as 'infidels'. And the murders of the Police have been simply barbaric.

They were given ample time to 'peacefully' protest. Six weeks! And they were causing inconvenience and disruption to the local population. Very few countries democratic or otherwise would allow their capital to be thus compromised indefinately. However strongly the Turkish Islamist leader Erdogan condemns the 'massacre' he forgets that he was severe enough with the protesters in Taksim Square a few months ago! They were tear-gassed and water-cannoned. If the Turkish forces stopped short of shooting protesters I imagine that it was simply because it did not prove necessary. And the protestors against Fracking in England? Peaceful, yes. But dispersed nevertheless.

Moreover the protesters were given ample warning of the dispersal and they were told in no uncertain terms that violent resistance would be met with force. They did not need to die. They were free to leave and the vast majority did just that. But the hardline extremists insisted that they were ready to give their lives as Martyrs for Morsi. They were equally prepared to put forward innocent children for Martyrdom! Well, now some of them have got their wish!

A death toll or approximately 500 is not negligable and it is of course regrettable. But considering the number of protesters there were- hundreds of thousands maybe? it is much lower than might be imagined. And I wouldn't mind betting that the police weren't responsible for all of those fatalities either!

Wow, they were allowed to protest for six weeks, the right to free speech is not time limited!

Hundreds of people were murdered on the streets and any comparison with disputes in the UK have no merit whatsoever.

TO defend or justify it is to defend and justify murder.

I cant bring myself to comment on the final paragraph of your post.

Wow.

[Goddess]

51.7% is the actual figure.
Democratically elected maybe, but close to half the population didn't want him in the first place. And of those that did vote for him I reckon a goodly proportion only gave him a vote because they didn't want the alternative, not that they wanted him.

[Dusak]

If you are a business owner over here, just about reaping the rewards of your and in most cases, your family's hard work over many years then some d**k with a bottle filled with fuel, that ex bottle of Fanta which could of been bought from this shop, burns all their hard work to the ground, lock, stock and barrel, would you not want to shoot him dead. I know I would, regardless of his age. The intent to destroy is there. Innocent protesters killed? How do you know, in such a conflict as this, who was innocent or not. Was there a camera crew following his/her every move? Did she/he not get carried along with the energy of the throngs, never be tempted to throw a projectile towards the opposition to cause hurt and possible death? Once the energy of movement and the numbers grow you become part of the collective, you follow their lead to become part of the force, supporting those beside you, all for one and one for all. Any truly peaceful born person would know, given the history of this country, that if they decided to attend any protests such as these, death and destruction is all part and parcel of the gatherings. Besides, they become instant martyr's for the cause, so in their eyes they are on a win win journey to Heaven.

When you listen to a news report, that is just what you do, listen. They are words presented as a report. So these words and statements are not backed up by hard evidence. It amazes me how often now that we hear the term ''unconfirmed.'' Is this because so many have been caught out in the past fabricating news for bigger hits? News corporations need good results, viewing figures, so do tend to stretch the odd point to create a more interesting story. And it works, because if such and such news channels says this is what is, then it must be right. As the saying goes, never believe everything you hear.

As for the voting. You suddenly give millions of people something that they have never had in their lives, a free and democratic voting system. But the vast majority of these people were either coffee shop political shouters, not having a clue what they are on about except for the well known and country wide excepted fact that the Mubarak clan were a shower of barstewards and had to go. The rest, living in the 'sticks' hadn't even heard of those that were standing to be elected. So if Mohammed next door who had done an extra year in school and was considered the wise man of the village and stated that ''x'' was the man to go for, they went. I always remember watching a quiz program in the UK called supermarket sweep. The winner got thirty seconds to run hell for leather around the shelves throwing all they could grab in the trolly to keep. They always seemed to go for the really, and not necessarily needed, expensive items, like twenty tins of salmon and other exotic goods. It was a greedy grab exercise. But if they had just concentrated on the items that were really important in their lives, the benefits would of been immediate to them.

[Who2]

So why as ex-pats living in Egypt don't we all send questions to Any Questions this week it might just might get a response, but don't hold out any luck...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/an ... s/contact/

[Zooropa]

If you are a business owner over here, just about reaping the rewards of your and in most cases, your family's hard work over many years then some d**k with a bottle filled with fuel, that ex bottle of Fanta which could of been bought from this shop, burns all their hard work to the ground, lock, stock and barrel, would you not want to shoot him dead. I know I would, regardless of his age. The intent to destroy is there. Innocent protesters killed? How do you know, in such a conflict as this, who was innocent or not. Was there a camera crew following his/her every move? Did she/he not get carried along with the energy of the throngs, never be tempted to throw a projectile towards the opposition to cause hurt and possible death? Once the energy of movement and the numbers grow you become part of the collective, you follow their lead to become part of the force, supporting those beside you, all for one and one for all. Any truly peaceful born person would know, given the history of this country, that if they decided to attend any protests such as these, death and destruction is all part and parcel of the gatherings. Besides, they become instant martyr's for the cause, so in their eyes they are on a win win journey to Heaven.

I myself, have never referred to them as innocent, it is becuase i do not know who did what and why.

But this is a democracy and you cant cherry pick, wrong doing is sorted in the courts not through the barrell of a gun.

Thats the kind of thing we all think is awful when it happens in oppressive states and we think its awful because we consider ourselves more enlightened and better.

"Battle ye not with monsters".....

Take the riots in london last year, dont get me wrong, they are toe rags who deserve every punishment going, look at the damage they did, that old carpert shop that had been there for years burnt to the ground, much like the scenario you describe.

Not a single person was killed as far as my memory serves.

Thats what happens in a democracy.

Yes of course it could have been predicted, many, many rights we enjoy today are as a result of people knowingly risking their lives to protest.

We owe an awful lot to those who came before who won those rights for us all to enjoy.

Im not supporting the Morsi supporters but principles apply to all sides, not just those you agree with.

Democracy.

[Bombay]

If you are a business owner over here, just about reaping the rewards of your and in most cases, your family's hard work over many years then some d**k with a bottle filled with fuel, that ex bottle of Fanta which could of been bought from this shop, burns all their hard work to the ground, lock, stock and barrel, would you not want to shoot him dead. I know I would, regardless of his age. The intent to destroy is there. Innocent protesters killed? How do you know, in such a conflict as this, who was innocent or not. Was there a camera crew following his/her every move? Did she/he not get carried along with the energy of the throngs, never be tempted to throw a projectile towards the opposition to cause hurt and possible death? Once the energy of movement and the numbers grow you become part of the collective, you follow their lead to become part of the force, supporting those beside you, all for one and one for all. Any truly peaceful born person would know, given the history of this country, that if they decided to attend any protests such as these, death and destruction is all part and parcel of the gatherings. Besides, they become instant martyr's for the cause, so in their eyes they are on a win win journey to Heaven.

I myself, have never referred to them as innocent, it is becuase i do not know who did what and why.

But this is a democracy and you cant cherry pick, wrong doing is sorted in the courts not through the barrell of a gun.

Thats the kind of thing we all think is awful when it happens in oppressive states and we think its awful because we consider ourselves more enlightened and better.

"Battle ye not with monsters".....

Take the riots in london last year, dont get me wrong, they are toe rags who deserve every punishment going, look at the damage they did, that old carpert shop that had been there for years burnt to the ground, much like the scenario you describe.

Not a single person was killed as far as my memory serves.

Thats what happens in a democracy.

Yes of course it could have been predicted, many, many rights we enjoy today are as a result of people knowingly risking their lives to protest.

We owe an awful lot to those who came before who won those rights for us all to enjoy.

Im not supporting the Morsi supporters but principles apply to all sides, not just those you agree with.

Democracy.

I think you will find that some people were killed.

As Obama said "Democracy is more than a piece of paper in a ballot box"
The people of Egypt spoke on 30th June, the Government didn't listen the Army did.

[jewel]

And the protestors against Fracking in England? Peaceful, yes. But dispersed nevertheless.

Victory for protestors! Cuadrilla is stopping drilling in Balcombe.....they can frack off!!

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-08-1 ... st-sussex/

then some d**k with a bottle filled with fuel, that ex bottle of Fanta which could of been bought from this shop, burns all their hard work to the ground, lock, stock and barrel, would you not want to shoot him dead. I know I would, regardless of his age

Peace, peace, dear friend try inhaling love, and exhale peace.......some incense may help too, nag champa would do nicely.........

[Zooropa]

If you are a business owner over here, just about reaping the rewards of your and in most cases, your family's hard work over many years then some d**k with a bottle filled with fuel, that ex bottle of Fanta which could of been bought from this shop, burns all their hard work to the ground, lock, stock and barrel, would you not want to shoot him dead. I know I would, regardless of his age. The intent to destroy is there. Innocent protesters killed? How do you know, in such a conflict as this, who was innocent or not. Was there a camera crew following his/her every move? Did she/he not get carried along with the energy of the throngs, never be tempted to throw a projectile towards the opposition to cause hurt and possible death? Once the energy of movement and the numbers grow you become part of the collective, you follow their lead to become part of the force, supporting those beside you, all for one and one for all. Any truly peaceful born person would know, given the history of this country, that if they decided to attend any protests such as these, death and destruction is all part and parcel of the gatherings. Besides, they become instant martyr's for the cause, so in their eyes they are on a win win journey to Heaven.

I myself, have never referred to them as innocent, it is becuase i do not know who did what and why.

But this is a democracy and you cant cherry pick, wrong doing is sorted in the courts not through the barrell of a gun.

Thats the kind of thing we all think is awful when it happens in oppressive states and we think its awful because we consider ourselves more enlightened and better.

"Battle ye not with monsters".....

Take the riots in london last year, dont get me wrong, they are toe rags who deserve every punishment going, look at the damage they did, that old carpert shop that had been there for years burnt to the ground, much like the scenario you describe.

Not a single person was killed as far as my memory serves.

Thats what happens in a democracy.

Yes of course it could have been predicted, many, many rights we enjoy today are as a result of people knowingly risking their lives to protest.

We owe an awful lot to those who came before who won those rights for us all to enjoy.

Im not supporting the Morsi supporters but principles apply to all sides, not just those you agree with.

Democracy.

I think you will find that some people were killed.

As Obama said "Democracy is more than a piece of paper in a ballot box"
The people of Egypt spoke on 30th June, the Government didn't listen the Army did.

Im happy to be corrected on deaths in London, as i said i was not totally sure, it may have slipped my mind because it was not anywhere near the 500-700+ killed in Cairo, it may also have stuck a bit more in my memory had the British army been walking around unloading their weapons at people.

Again im happy to be corrected but the Army was not the government was it?

Did they have a mandate in the constitution to remove an elected leader?

If not they had no lagitamacy in doing what they have done than if i had done it.

Speaking of Obama, it was good to see him condeming the awful events and also cancelling the joint excercise.

Where would the Egyptian Army be without US funding?

Ive no idea, but if the Army could not be kept without the funding you might well see members joining the protests when the wages dry up!

[Bombay]

Saudi will pay if the US stops its funding.
I do not recall whether the protesters in the UK were heavily armed either and firing at the police.
The constitution was one of the issues that started all the problems and of course there was no mandate in it to remove the government because the government that was removed wrote it.

The whole situation and the loss of life is a disaster for country but if the same rhetoric had been preached in the UK the police would have acted and take 10 years to finish it.

[Zooropa]

Me neither, were there 500-700+ armed and firing at the police in Cairo?