# 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:** 32
**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, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/621 "2014-02-04T12:47:48Z")
> [@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. When I said Morsi’s lies invalidated his election I meant what I said to mean his lies made his election not valid. The definition of valid is in part having the power of force. Not valid means therefore that Morsi did not have the power of force that his election to high office gave him from the very moment that he was arrested by the military. It must be commonly known that the election itself was valid and certified and that Morsi had power of force for one year that was granted to him for winning the valid election. When five people tell me that I may not use a definition of ‘valid’ that is precisely what the dictionary tells me is one of its meanings, then five people are wrong and its a shame that all five will not admit that they are wrong when it is clear that they are. ---
**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, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/622 "2014-02-04T12:59:04Z")
Did the US election of 1972 continue to have full legal and Constitutional ‘power of force’ during the full term that Nixon and Agnew’s election enacted. If it did then the full elected term of Nixon Agnew was valid. That election was never invalidated. Morsi’s election was. ---
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/623 "2014-02-04T13:15:00Z")
> [@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. I thought posters were not allowed to use the word lies on this forum??? What is the difference between me saying a post details were a lie and told to use the word ‘errors’ instead and the above? ---
**Author:** ![Marmite\_Lover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Marmite\_Lover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marmite_Lover)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/624 "2014-02-04T13:26:36Z")
Calling another poster ignorant is okay here? Yet I got 2 infractions for saying a POST which said ’ political protests were illegal’ (which they are not and is easily proven) and me using the English word that I know of which is ‘lie’ because I don’t know what other word to use to describe something which is not true. What is the word English speakers use to say something printed is not true? ---
**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, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/625 "2014-02-04T14:12:34Z")
Just some friendly advice, since I’m not a moderator: > [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > I thought posters were not allowed to use the word lies on this forum??? > > What is the difference between me saying a post details were a lie and told to use the word ‘errors’ instead and the above? The rule only applies to people posting on this MB. I can’t say that you have lied, but I can say that Obama lied, or Bush lied or Morsi lied. In the post you quoted, **HA** was referring to Morsi’s lies, not the lies of anyone posting on this MB. > [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > Calling another poster ignorant is okay here? > > Yet I got 2 infractions for saying a POST which said ’ political protests were illegal’ (which they are not and is easily proven) and me using the English word that I know of which is ‘lie’ because I don’t know what other word to use to describe something which is not true. > > What is the word English speakers use to say something printed is not true? “Ignorant” isn’t necessarily an insult because it simply implies the person is uninformed. Calling them “stupid” would not be allowed. “Posting ignorance” is not a problem, since that refers to the post and not the poster. But question about moderation are supposed to be taken up in the ATMB forum, not in the other forms like this one. ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/626 "2014-02-04T14:23:27Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > What is the word English speakers use to say something printed is not true? Missed that one… Just say it’s untrue or incorrect. Those are value-neutral, and don’t say anything about the motive of the poster. If you say it’s a lie, that means you are accusing the poster of deliberately trying to deceive the rest of us. Read [this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448632) ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/627 "2014-02-04T14:23:50Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Did the US election of 1972 continue to have full legal and Constitutional ‘power of force’ during the full term that Nixon and Agnew’s election enacted. > > If it did then the full elected term of Nixon Agnew was valid. That election was never invalidated. Morsi’s election was. Nixon resigned. Morsi was taken out and arrested by the military. I trust you see a big difference. ---
**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, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/628 "2014-02-04T15:07:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. Given that “election” refers to the process of voting in the president/leader, then an invalid election would be one where there was a problem with that process. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Overturned elections generally refers to overturning them before they are certified. Exactly. See, you get it. After that point, the term is “removed from office”, (or “removed from power”, “deposed”). The word “election” isn’t interchangeable with the word “term.” > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. That would entail acting as though Morsi had never legally been President. An annulment, so to speak. That is not what’s happened. No one is saying Morsi was never President, they are saying he’s no longer President. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I did not misspeak. Called it. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Did you use the term, ‘election itself’ … cool. > > Was the ‘resulting Morsi administration’ an \*\*elected \*\*administration based upon a valid election? Yes. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Do some people use the phrase ‘elected official’? Yes. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. The powers of the President come from Egypt’s constitution. The election is how a president is chosen, it doesn’t give him his powers. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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. His election did have legal force, though. He issued orders, and carried out his presidential duties. How do you account for this? If his election was invalid, then he was never President…and that’s plainly not what happened. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > 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? No, his _election_ was unaffected. What changed was his ability to carry out the office of President (and facing charges in a kangaroo court, of course). > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Also I am not asking about policies that he enacted during his first year. Naturally, since if any edicts or policies he put in place are still effective, even if it was the contract to empty Parliament’s trash cans, then your bizarre argument is destroyed. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Is he effectively the President of Egypt now? Nope, he was removed from office after serving one year. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Does his signature have any legal force now that he has been removed from office? See above. Again, “election” /= “term”. Different words mean different things. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When I said Morsi’s lies invalidated his election I meant what I said to mean his lies made his election not valid. The definition of valid is in part having the power of force. Not valid means therefore that Morsi did not have the power of force that his election to high office gave him from the very moment that he was arrested by the military. So he was never legally President? 😕 > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > It must be commonly known that the election itself was valid and certified and that Morsi had power of force for one year that was granted to him for winning the valid election. So he _was_ legally President? 😕 > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When five people tell me that I may not use a definition of ‘valid’ that is precisely what the dictionary tells me is one of its meanings, then five people are wrong and its a shame that all five will not admit that they are wrong when it is clear that they are. You’re using “valid” correctly, the problem is that you’re joining it to the word “election”, then using “election” as a synonym for “term of office”. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/629 "2014-02-04T18:26:54Z")
> [@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. [quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:525, topic:679071”] There you go. You are the one having a problem with English. In Nixon/Ford’s case it does not matter because their election was never invalidated, ended, terminated. Ford did serve out Nixon’s term according to the Constitution or am I missing something? While I have your attention, I’ll ask you again. Here’s what you wrote: {A} “So, reading the news today it looks like there are Senators in both parties who are taking both sides on this. 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. As violence escalates, there really are no good options for us here.” -John Mace Since you claim to have mastered English, how have you determined that the above statement {A} from you is **an argument that it was a coup**. My response to {A} was. \*“I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it:” \* and then I cited this, \*“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 from this link: [http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html](http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html) You wrote {A} that it was up to Obama to decide. I responded {B} that I’d go with what an Egyptian thinks about it. Plain English means that I was non-committal at this point on whether or not it was a coup just like you were. My argument is that I will let an Egyptian decide what to call it. But then you have the audacity to tell me that: {C} “It matters not” … you tell me “It matters not” … as if you are the final authority who gets to decide ‘it matters not’. I did not argue that it was a coup d’état. I didn’t argue anything on it. It \*\*matters fully \*\*because your comment {A} was not presented as an argument or point or comment where I could have answered with an argument that it was not a coup. Yet you keep repeating that citing an Egyptian to decide what to call it is somehow my argument. That is absurd. And then I explain shortly afterward, this: {D} > [@Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cutting-off-aid-to-egypt-is-the-law/662825/72): > > I’d call what happened to Morsi was a smack down or to paraphrase Jefferson… it was a good bit of ‘refreshing the tree of liberty’ when it had to. \*\*Call it a coup D’état if you like. It doesn’t matter within a deeper perspective.[/\*\*QUOTE] > That is \*\*my argument \*\*on whether or not it was a coup. And it still is. It was technically a coup d’état but in the larger scheme of things it does not and it did not matter what it is called. Call it a coup d’état if you like. The aid is flowing - Morsi is in jail… it looks like a civil war is being avoided. > So if you want to know what my actual argument is on this topic, "it was technically a coup that has ‘refreshed the tree of liberty’ in Egypt after Morsi tried to chop it down. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Nope not making up rules the point was Dadmoocher tried to lay an argument on the board comparing Nixon’s resignation to Morsi’s being a victim of a coup d’état. > Dasmoocher’s argment failed because Nixon’s term went to completion without him. Nixon’s election therefore remained valid… because Ford finished the term. Not so Morsi… His election has been invalidaded null and void … terminated after about a year. > > You cannot present an argument as to why I am wrong and Dadmoocher is right. > Think about it. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Nixon resigned. Morsi was taken out and arrested by the military. I trust you see a big difference. As you can see I do see the difference. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/630 "2014-02-04T18:40:34Z")
Yep, that certainly clarifies things… ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/631 "2014-02-04T19:14:44Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. [quote=“NotfooledbyW, post:629, topic:679071”] > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > There you go. You are the one having a problem with English. In Nixon/Ford’s case it does not matter because their election was never invalidated, ended, terminated. Ford did serve out Nixon’s term according to the Constitution or am I missing something? Who are you talking to? The first quote on top is mine but everything else below is, I believe, **John Mace’s**. Let me ask you this: did Nixon’s administration end with his resignation? I think most people would consider Ford’s administration as not Nixon’s and a separate administration. Apparently, according to your logic, LBJ’s administration did not begin with JFK’s death, but with his [LBJ’s] election in 1964. If Ford’s administration finished Nixon’s election, the it follows that LBJ’s administration was finishing JFK’s. Let me ask you something else: If someone said “Barack Obama is considered the first black US President” and I said “Yeah, I’d go with that”, am I agreeing with that statement or not? > [@](#): > > While I have your attention, I’ll ask you again. Here’s what you wrote: My attention or **John Mace’s**? Again, you illustrate your lack of clarity better than anyone else. > [@](#): > > {A} “So, reading the news today it looks like there are Senators in both parties who are taking both sides on this. 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. As violence escalates, there really are no good options for us here.” -John Mace > Since you claim to have mastered English, how have you determined that the above statement {A} from you is **an argument that it was a coup**. > > My response to {A} was. \*“I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it:” \* > > and then I cited this, \*“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 from this link: [http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html](http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html) > > You wrote {A} that it was up to Obama to decide. I responded {B} that I’d go with what an Egyptian thinks about it. Plain English means that I was non-committal at this point on whether or not it was a coup just like you were. My argument is that I will let an Egyptian decide what to call it. > But then you have the audacity to tell me that: > > {C} > “It matters not” … you tell me “It matters not” … as if you are the final authority who gets to decide ‘it matters not’. I did not argue that it was a coup d’état. I didn’t argue anything on it. > > It \*\*matters fully \*\*because your comment {A} was not presented as an argument or point or comment where I could have answered with an argument that it was not a coup. Yet you keep repeating that citing an Egyptian to decide what to call it is somehow my argument. That is absurd. > > And then I explain shortly afterward, this: > {D} > > As you can see I do see the difference. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/632 "2014-02-04T19:17:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Given that “election” refers to the process of voting in the president/leader, then an invalid election would be one where there was a problem with that process. > > Exactly. See, you get it. After that point, the term is “removed from office”, (or “removed from power”, “deposed”). The word “election” isn’t interchangeable with the word “term.” > > You’re using “valid” correctly, the problem is that you’re joining it to the word “election”, then using “election” as a synonym for “term of office”. Where where you trained or advised or licensed or ordained to state with any power of force or any kind of authority, that an election refers only or is limited to the “process” of voting? One definition of election is “the act of electing” which refers to the meaning of ‘elect’. That takes me to this, "to determine in favor of a course of action, etc… So in that legitimate definition, not banned by you, I am easily and properly stating that in both cases, the Nixon and Morsi elections were the voters’ determination in favor of a course of action that was expected to last for four years. That legally binding expressed determination did not end when the process of the election ended. The valid election process in Egypt determined a course of action to be governed by Morsi. That determination became not valid Morsi was forced out office and arrested. The process was not invalidated the result, or the determination of the majority was invalidated. The way I stated it is fine. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/633 "2014-02-04T19:25:18Z")
Guys, I really think it’s time to stop this hijack and let this thread die its natural death. **NFBW** has his own ideas about what these words mean, and the rest of us disagree. No one is going to convince him he’s wrong, and he’s not going to convince us we’re wrong. All that is happening is the we’re posting the same things over and over and over. I think we need to just let it go. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/634 "2014-02-04T19:25:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep, that certainly clarifies things… Good . You’ve been shown to be wrong. Thanks. ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/635 "2014-02-04T19:39:16Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Where where you trained or advised or licensed or ordained to state with any power of force or any kind of authority, that an election refers only or is limited to the “process” of voting? One definition of election is “the act of electing” which refers to the meaning of ‘elect’. That takes me to this, "to determine in favor of a course of action, etc… So in that legitimate definition, not banned by you, I am easily and properly stating that in both cases, the Nixon and Morsi elections were the voters’ determination in favor of a course of action that was expected to last for four years. That legally binding expressed determination did not end when the process of the election ended. “The act of electing” _is_ the process of voting. See how it refers to an act, i.e. a singular, discrete event? That’s not interchangeable with a _term_, which is a span of time and _not_ an event. And yes, the election ends when the election ends. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The valid election process in Egypt determined a course of action to be governed by Morsi. Right. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That determination became not valid Morsi was forced out office and arrested. The process was not invalidated the result, or the determination of the majority was invalidated. It wasn’t, though. Morsi’s election still has [“force, weight, or cogency”](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid?s=t). Again, he’s being treated as ex-President Morsi, not never-was-President Morsi. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > The way I stated it is fine. Even though it’s needlessly complex and unclear? Even though it requires using phrasing like “Morsi’s election in a valid election process was a legally binding determination in favor of a course of action that was expected to last for four years, but that determination became not valid when Morsi was forced out of office”, instead of “Morsi was duly elected, then forced out of office”? You really think your way is fine? ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/636 "2014-02-04T19:46:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Guys, I really think it’s time to stop this hijack and let this thread die its natural death. > > **NFBW** has his own ideas about what these words mean, and the rest of us disagree. No one is going to convince him he’s wrong, and he’s not going to convince us we’re wrong. All that is happening is the we’re posting the same things over and over and over. > > I think we need to just let it go. Didn’t preview, so I’m just now seeing this. That’s probably for the best, I’ve made my points on the election/validity stuff as well as I think I can, so assuming my previous post has no effect on him either, I’ll let it go and not reply further on this subject. Meanwhile, the democracy lovin’ military government [cracks down on the foreign press.](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0203/Egypt-fires-a-warning-shot-at-the-foreign-press) ETA: If nothing else, this thread was a glimpse into the Third World mindset that leads to endless dictatorships: contempt for the rule of law, refusal to see any value in the processes and political culture of more successful nations, a boundless appetite for conspiracy theory and demonization… ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/637 "2014-02-04T20:14:40Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Meanwhile, the democracy lovin’ military government [cracks down on the foreign press.](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0203/Egypt-fires-a-warning-shot-at-the-foreign-press) Like I said, nothing screams functional democracy like the police arresting reporters for interviewing the wrong people. From the article: > [@](#): > > Egypt’s State Information Service (SIS) sent an explanatory note to the foreign press last week that claimed freedom of expression is guaranteed in Egypt, but the note is littered with caveats and get-out clauses. > > It reads, “Egyptian law ensures (press) freedoms completely and does not penalize for thought and opinion unless this thought turns really to a materialistic behavior that the Egyptian Penal code forbids. And this falls within the crimes that threaten the country’s national security and its benefits.” > > Everything that follows “unless” in that sentence means that press freedoms aren’t guaranteed at all. > > “The SIS also notifies that Egyptian law does not criminalize mere contact or foreknowledge of any accused criminal or a person imprisoned in a pending case as this is not considered a punishable offense to be penalized except if this contact is a sort of assisting or inciting or as a result of a prior agreement.” > > The “except” is key, once again creating a caveat big enough to drive a truck through. Almost anything can be considered “inciting” and the current government has frequently used this allegation in its crackdown on dissent. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/638 "2014-02-04T20:39:09Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Like I said, nothing screams functional democracy like the police arresting reporters for interviewing the wrong people. From the article: But if America had laws against interviewing the wrong people, then they’d have been arrested in America too! That weasel-word approach to law, where the government has enough leeway to punish those it doesn’t like and to let off those it does like, seems to be pretty standard in Egypt. [terrorism is](http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403158_text) “the use of force, violence, threat, or intimidation perpetrated by the actor in carrying out a criminal enterprise individually or collectively for the purpose of disturbing public order or exposing to danger the safety and security of society.” [Also illegal:](http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/research/Egypt/criminal-code.pdf): “impairing the national unity or social peace”, “affronting the President of the Republic”, “villifying the King or President of a foreign country”, “founding, without authorization from the government, associations, corporations, or systems of any kind, of international quality”, “using religon in advocating and propagating by talk or in writing, or by any other method, extremist thought with the aim of instigating sedition and division”. It’s rather horrible. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/639 "2014-02-04T21:21:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Guys, I really think it’s time to stop this hijack and let this thread die its natural death. > > **NFBW** has his own ideas about what these words mean, and the rest of us disagree. No one is going to convince him he’s wrong, and he’s not going to convince us we’re wrong. All that is happening is the we’re posting the same things over and over and over. > > I think we need to just let it go. Sure when I use the dictionary to defend my use of words the quote 'reasonable people" unquote prepare to scatter for the hills. Seeing that an ‘election’ is also by definition a ‘determination by the act of voting for a certain course of action’ lets try this. You are an extreme loyal member of the Muslim Brotherhood and your sacred act of voting chose Morsi and your individual effort contributed to making Morsi the president for four years, Allah willing. Then boom, the military takes Morsi down after one year. Your sacred act of voting for a certain course of action for the next four years, (the election), has been invalidated. Tends to piss you off right that your act of voting did not hold up for the full four years. The election was voided. ---
**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, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/640 "2014-02-04T21:31:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > ETA: If nothing else, this thread was a glimpse into the Third World mindset that leads to endless dictatorships: contempt for the rule of law… Such arrogance and demonstration of first-world superiority over these inferior third world beings that you so hastily condemn in the third year of revolution from under the thumb of a first world backed dictatorship for the past thirty years. Quite interesting to see it expressed so blatantly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=33)