# Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071 "2014-01-17T16:30:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/601 "2014-02-04T00:38:39Z")
See my previous post: hovel[huhv-uhl, hov-] noun 1. a small, very humble dwelling house; a wretched hut. 2. any dirty, disorganized dwelling. 3. an open shed, as for sheltering cattle or tools. Just in case - when I wrote the Taliban’s hovels were being bombed I do not mean to start a drawn out conversation about the proper name for a Taliban Islamist militant. I mean where they reside. Like a dwelling. In a democracy a man’s home is his castle. No I’m not saying the Taliban live in castles. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/602 "2014-02-04T00:43:17Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Is the Democratically elected government in Pakistan brutal? Too much so for my tastes, certainly, but less so than Egypt. Most of Pakistan’s human rights abuses are [the product of the military or private citizens, more so than the government.](http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/pakistan) > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The Pakistan Taliban are being systematically wiped out by the Pakistan Army and US military drone strikes. Their hovels are being bombed on a daily basis. Yes, I’m aware of that. Your point is? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/603 "2014-02-04T00:51:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > A regular person could just say, “When I said his lies invalidated the first election, I meant they justified his being removed from office”, and be done with it. Instead, he’d rather sacrifice any credibility and drag this out over pages and pages than simply admit he misspoke, was too broad, was unclear, or, God forbid, was mistaken. I find it fascinating, actually, that incredible level of stubborn pride. It’s almost like watching a science experiment. Statement A will result in response X, and then statement B results in response Y. Example [disclaimer–not real quotes]: **NfbW** says something. **Poster** : You said this. **NfbW** : No I didn’t. **Poster** : Here’s your quote where you say that. **NfbW** : That’s a snippet taken out of context. **Poster** : No, it’s not. **NfbW** : You have failed! I am winning! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/604 "2014-02-04T02:11:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Who was the president of Egypt in 2012? > [@dasmoocher](#): > > Actually, my point was to get you to define what a valid or invalid election is, since you’ve said Morsi’s was both. Yep, and that’s why he refused to answer my question, above. Because the answer is “Morsi”. If the election had been “voided”, the answer would be “no one”. But he knows that “no one” is not the correct answer. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/605 "2014-02-04T02:14:41Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > So what’s your take if two people get married and then divorced? Was the wedding not valid? > > And for brevity’s sake, you can skip the part of your response about it not being analogous and just answer whether the wedding was valid or not. It’s about as good an analogy as there is. Consider the difference between a divorce and an annulment. What we had in Egypt was a divorce, not an annulment. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/606 "2014-02-04T02:23:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The term for that is “removed from office”. An invalid election would be one overturned due to a problem with the election itself, not the resulting administration. Morsi was removed due to his policies, not his election. Who of significance says "An invalid election must be “one overturned due to a problem with the election itself” - not the resulting administration? I see no reason to take your word for it. Overturned elections generally refers to overturning them before they are certified. I am talking about an election in the midst of a revolution. The first election. This election was overturned by the revolutionaries who throw off their previous dictatorship. The first election has been voided… killed… ended… Invalidated and so it is with the 'resulting administration… the revolutionaries ended it. I did not misspeak. Did you use the term, ‘election itself’ … cool. Was the ‘resulting Morsi administration’ an \*\*elected \*\*administration based upon a valid election? Do some people use the phrase ‘elected official’? In a functional democracy it is the ‘election’ that gives the resulting administration the ‘power of force’ … so it is quite proper to say that when that ‘power of force’ which was \*\*granted by a valid election has been taken away \*\*by whatever means and for whatever reason that the valid election has become no longer valid. Yes NOT VALID. This is the definition of ‘valid’: 4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force. [VALID Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid?s=t) So NOT VALID means, “NOT HAVING LEGAL FORCE”. The valid election of Morsi no longer has valid legal force because he was **removed from office** by what technically would be call a coup d’état. When Morsi was \*‘removed from office’ \*did the ‘election’ of Morsi ceased to be effective, ceased to be binding and no longer has any legal force? Also I am not asking about policies that he enacted during his first year. Is he effectively the President of Egypt now? Does his signature have any legal force now that he has been removed from office? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/607 "2014-02-04T02:26:30Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your argument is finished at this point (Morsi, but not Nixon) because with regard to Nixon’s resignation/ouster _the Nixon/Ford election_ continued to be effective, binding and maintained its legal force? It remained valid to completion. > > On the other hand Morsi’s election has ceased to be effective, binding and no longer has an ounce of legal force? It is no longer valid. > > So you are wrong to start with that point about Nixon and it is quite funny since that mistake was made before and I have already pointed it out. [my italics] Since you like pointing out mistakes, you do know there was no _Nixon/Ford election_, right? Wait, don’t tell me–there’s another definition of election that makes this true. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/608 "2014-02-04T02:31:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, and that’s why he refused to answer my question, above. Because the answer is “Morsi”. If the election had been “voided”, the answer would be “no one”. But he knows that “no one” is not the correct answer. I didn’t refuse to answer your question. You have made another error. And your statement is in error too. The election was not voided until 2013. Morsi was president in 2012 until he was ‘removed from office’ and his election to public office was voided at that point. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/609 "2014-02-04T02:31:18Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > [my italics] > > Since you like pointing out mistakes, you do know there was no _Nixon/Ford election_, right? > > Wait, don’t tell me–there’s another definition of election that makes this true. Notice that he’s still dodging the question about who was the president of Egypt in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/610 "2014-02-04T02:34:11Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I didn’t refuse to answer your question. You have made another error. > > And your statement is in error too. The election was not voided until 2013. Morsi was president in 2012 until he was ‘removed from office’ and his election to public office was voided at that point. Emphasis added. Then the election was not voided. Q.E.D. Do you dispute that? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/611 "2014-02-04T02:45:58Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > [my italics] > > Since you like pointing out mistakes, you do know there was no _Nixon/Ford election_, right? > > Wait, don’t tell me–there’s another definition of election that makes this true. Nope I forgot Spiro… There’s a real correction… Thanks. Now my point still survives my mistake. Big picture right. Ford was the Vice President when Nixon resigned. The Vice President becomes the President. The Nixon/Agnew election went to finish without a new election … right? Morsi’s elected office ended. That is what the 'BAD DEMOCRACY NOW!!! Crowd is weeping about. There was no legitimate constitutional means for a transfer of power to fulfill the Morsi election term it is lawful and legitimate completion. > [@](#): > > Once upon a time, the Vice President was simply the presidential contender with the second-highest number of votes. [http://vicepresidents.com/blog/2012/01/16/a-history-lesson-how-we-choose-vps/](http://vicepresidents.com/blog/2012/01/16/a-history-lesson-how-we-choose-vps/) Perhaps the Egyptians should try that… and then if approved Morsi’s term could be completed… But I guess Morsi’s opposition is in exile somewhere … ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/612 "2014-02-04T02:55:33Z")
I don’t know that I can speak for everyone here, but for myself you need to understand that this isn’t about debating with you. It’s about fighting ignorance. I think most people on this MB realize there is no point in trying to convince you of anything. But, when you post ignorance, we’re going to smack it down. If someone reads a statement like “the election was voided”, they would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the election had been declared invalid and that the winner was never legitimately an office holder. That is to say, that their tenure in office was made void from the day they took it. Go back to the analogy of the annulment and a divorce. With the former, the marriage is declared to have never existed. With the latter, it was simply terminated after having existed for some time. So, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, we feel compelled to confront you when you spread ignorance. That is all. This ceased to be a debate a long time ago. It’s now about correcting the erroneous posts you are making. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/613 "2014-02-04T02:58:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. Then the election was not voided. Q.E.D. > > Do you dispute that? No the election was voided. Morsi was ‘elected to a four year term’ … that means the \*\*valid election \*\*in 2012 granted him power **for four years**. His four years of power came to him because he won an election. That ELECTED power… that election result was voided one year after it was invoked. > [@](#): > > Sunday will mark the one-year anniversary of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s inauguration. It will be met not by celebration but by nationwide anxiety and large-scale — possibly violent — protests. Egypt’s opposition is planning far more than an expression of dissatisfaction; protesters see the demonstrations as the start of a push bring Morsi’s four-year term to a premature end. > > Read more: Egypt’s Morsi Faces Political D-Day One Year After Being Sworn in as President | [TIME.com](http://TIME.com) [Egypt’s Morsi Faces Political D-Day One Year After Being Sworn in as President | TIME.com](http://world.time.com/2013/06/28/egypts-morsi-faces-political-d-day-one-year-after-being-sworn-in-as-president/#ixzz2sJnJNE00) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/614 "2014-02-04T03:02:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know that I can speak for everyone here, but for myself you need to understand that this isn’t about debating with you. It’s about fighting ignorance. I think most people on this MB realize there is no point in trying to convince you of anything. > > But, when you post ignorance, we’re going to smack it down. If someone reads a statement like “the election was voided”, they would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the election had been declared invalid and that the winner was never legitimately an office holder. That is to say, that their tenure in office was made void from the day they took it. > > Go back to the analogy of the annulment and a divorce. With the former, the marriage is declared to have never existed. With the latter, it was simply terminated after having existed for some time. > > So, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, we feel compelled to confront you when you spread ignorance. That is all. This ceased to be a debate a long time ago. It’s now about correcting the erroneous posts you are making. You cannot define what I’ve written that is ignorant. “IF SOMEONE” … sounds somethinga similar to an anecdotal story… a story told by someone who may very well be ignorant… Your refusal to apply context to things does not sit well with your claim that you are fighting ignorance… ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/615 "2014-02-04T03:08:17Z")
Is it ignorance to read into one’s own words that the statement is about whether or not Morsi’s exit was a coup or not when there is absolutely no words that suggest that is what the statement was about. And then to never respond when asked about it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/616 "2014-02-04T03:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > If someone reads a statement like “the election was voided”, they would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the election had been declared invalid and that the winner was never legitimately an office holder. That is to say, that their tenure in office was made void from the day they took it. Your someone would be perfectly more reasonable to assume (since they are assuming) that I was not saying that the winner was\*\* never \*\*legitimately an office holder. That is because I did not say that he was ‘never’ a legitimate office holder. He was a legitimate office holder until he was removed from office… and his election to office was voided… at the moment he was gone. When he began sitting in jail… He was not a legitimate elected official the day he went to the pokey. But he was before that… Easy to assume… If you are truly fighting ignorance… Perhaps not so easy to assume if \*\*‘someone’s’ \*\*agenda is something else. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/617 "2014-02-04T04:20:54Z")
Reasonable people are unlikely to assume what you are thinking. That’s been proven over and over again in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/618 "2014-02-04T07:55:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Reasonable people are unlikely to assume what you are thinking. That’s been proven over and over again in this thread. Reasonable people do not “assume” anything if there is some need for another poster to clarify what was meant by the use of words in a snippet residing within the context of the overall debate, discussion or argument. Reasonable people ask politely what was meant and move on. That could have been done here very easily. That is simply common polite manners. And reasonable people do not claim something has been ‘proven’ when the topic being addressed is ‘assuming’ what other’s ‘are thinking’. You have proven nothing. Saying that you have is not reasonable. And on another note, ‘reasonable people’ do not go on nit-picking to death something that was settled as a non-issue six months earlier on the exact same topic. I can however show you that you are absolutely wrong to infer that I argued that the ouster of Morsi was NOT a coup because I chose to cite a third party opinion by someone who is part of the revolution in Egypt. I can do this by showing the following post which is a very reasonable and issue-settling account about the US aid package for Egypt and the date that it was posted. Bayard’s information was posted **BEFORE** the post where you claimed that I argued that the coup was not a coup. That argument was not even a factor by the time my reply to you came around. Who the hell are the reasonable people who would care what I or Obama or McCain called the last day of Morsi’s unfinished election term? Whether it was called a coup d’état after this point really did not matter. > [@](#): > > \*\* (Bayard 07-06-2013 10:53 PM) \*\*The aid for the year has already been paid. From the Chicago Tribune editorial board: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Cite\>” Luckily, there is no immediate need. The U.S. has already provided its annual contribution for this year, with the next payment not due until May. By then, the government may have held new elections, which if handled fairly would meet the conditions for continued aid. > > [Chicago Tribune - Chicago News, Sports, Weather, Business & Things to Do](http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-76573282/) “\ > Let it ride. Read it all here: Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law ([Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695795)) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/619 "2014-02-04T08:29:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, we feel compelled to confront you when you spread ignorance. I guess you have characterized my comment that _- Moris’s removal from ELECTED office was technically a coup -_ as ignorance and inconsistency But you did not confront this ignorance when it happened last July: > [@](#): > > **(Horatio Hellpop 07-06-2013 09:44 PM)** The situation is a little murky. The Egyptian military has specific duties and privileges spelled out in Egypt’s constitution that, by some interpretations, allow or compel them to remove a president who threatens Egypt’s security and stability. Morsi arguably fit the bill. This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a “coup,” although it kind of walks and quacks like one. Read the entire thread at Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law ([Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695795)) I believe Horatia Hellpop is a very reasonable man in this comment. _This arguably does not meet the strict definition of a “coup,” although it kind of walks and quacks like one_ You know _call it a coup if you like since it is technically a coup_… But it could also arguably not meet the strict definition of a ‘coup’ because of the revolutionary and constitutional situation in Egypt during the past three years or since Mubarak’s ouster… when the military took control anyway. You did not bother to stamp out Horatia’s quote unquote ‘ignorance’ back then. Why? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/620 "2014-02-04T10:18:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You cannot define what I’ve written that is ignorant. I’d say writing that there was a Nixon/Ford election qualifies. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I can however show you that you are absolutely wrong to infer that I argued that the ouster of Morsi was NOT a coup because I chose to cite a third party opinion by someone who is part of the revolution in Egypt. I can do this by showing the following post which is a very reasonable and issue-settling account about the US aid package for Egypt and the date that it was posted. > > Bayard’s information was posted **BEFORE** the post where you claimed that I argued that the coup was not a coup. That argument was not even a factor by the time my reply to you came around. Who the hell are the reasonable people who would care what I or Obama or McCain called the last day of Morsi’s unfinished election term? Whether it was called a coup d’état after this point really did not matter. > Read it all here: Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law ([Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=695795)) Maybe you can help me out. I didn’t participate in the **Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law** thread. But is this not your first post in that thread? Here is the entire post so we can judge its context: > [@Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cutting-off-aid-to-egypt-is-the-law/662825/54): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **John Mace** > > Very complicated. But, it also notes that Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not, so it’s really up to him unless Congress writes a new law. > > I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it: > > > [@](#): > > > > This is a historical revolution and not a coup d’etat or protest movement or outraged uprising. It is a revolution that will continue until all of its goals are realized. > > > > — > > > > Nawal El Saadawi is an internationally renowned Egyptian writer who’s writing has influenced five generations of women and men in Egypt and other Arab countries, and paved the way for dissidence, rebellion and revolution. For more than four decades she has suffered under Egyptian political and religious authorities, which has led to imprisonment, exile, death threats and court trials. > > Read More: > > [Egypt: A People’s Revolution, Not a Crisis or Coup (Nawal El Saadawi)](http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peoples-revolution-saadawi.html) You say you “go with” what an Egyptian thinks about it. And what does “go with” mean to you? I suspect (don’t want to assume, now) most people—maybe not you—but most people would read that as you agree with what the Egyptian is saying. _Infer_ that you agree, if you will. And what is the Egyptian saying? Well, it appears that she’s saying Morsi’s overthrow, arrest, invalidation, being voided, or whatever is the result of “a historical revolution and not a coup d’etat”. I want to be sure, now. She’s saying it’s not a coup, correct? The title of the piece is “Egypt: A People’s Revolution, Not a Crisis or Coup (Nawal El Saadawi)”. This is the first sentence of your quoted material. And you “go with” that, because, well, that’s what you wrote just prior to your quote. Maybe you don’t realize this or agree with this, but you certainly seem to be making an argument by proxy. And you certainly didn’t qualify anything about your quote of her. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > What are you talking about? I have not disavowed El Saadawi or what she said. You are confused. You did not ‘call me’ on anything. I never ever ever ever ever ever argued that Morsi’s ouster was NOT A Coup. I argued that it was up to Epytians like El Saadaw to decide what to call it. > > My position is that it is up to Egyptians to decide how to handle their revolution. Not me not you not H.Action. El Saadawi is not going down the Islamist theocracy path for H.Action or anyone else. She said more than IT is not a coup’… See, this is why people find your posts, umm…let’s say, disjointed and contradictory. You have not disavowed El Saadawi saying it’s not a coup and you “go with" what she’s said—it is not a coup. But because you say you “go with” her argument, most people—probably all of them (I again suspect and not assume, now)—would read/infer that as her argument is your argument. Isn’t that why you posted the quote in the first place? And yet two sentences later you say you have “never ever ever ever ever ever argued that Morsi’s ouster was NOT A Coup.” It seems like you want to say “it’s not a coup” when you want to rebut **John Mace’s** assertion “that Obama is the decider as to whether this is a coup or not” in one thread, but say I “never said it is not a coup" in this thread. Predicted response: I never said it was not a coup; the Egyptian I “go with” did and she is not me; and what Egyptians call it doesn’t matter anyways. And then you’re going to say I don’t get the context of your first post in the other thread. But it’s up to you to provide the context when you quote a poster and then reply. As your post stands, it appears that **John Mace** said Obama gets to say whether it’s a coup and you tried to rebut that by saying the Egyptians say it is not a coup and you agree/“go with” that. However, before you latch on to a sentence or two above to rebut and “embarrass” me once again, maybe you should think on why it is no one “gets” those brilliant arguments you are sure you are making. How many times have people pointed out—incorrectly in your mind, I’m sure (_that_ I will assume)—that you have said contradictory things? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=32)