# 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:** 48
**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 22, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/941 "2014-02-22T03:57:53Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I don’t call it democracy… I’d just call it ‘right’. Yes, we know. You’re a strong advocate of democracy, as long as it’s the “right” kind. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/942 "2014-02-22T04:27:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17129348) I don’t call it democracy… I’d just call it ‘right’. “Cite” > > > [@](#): > > > > John Mace 02-21-2014 10:57 PM Yes, we know. You’re a strong advocate of democracy, as long as it’s the “right” kind. Yes that ‘right’ kind of democracy would be those that protects the right of individuals within the political minority to practice or not practice the religion or non-religion of their choice. ---
**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 22, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/943 "2014-02-22T04:37:48Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Yes that ‘right’ kind of democracy would be those that protects the right of individuals within the political minority to practice or not practice the religion or non-religion of their choice. You forgot the most important part-- the kind where the military decides what is “right”. They’re a much better judge than the people. As I said earlier-- democracy, which derives from the Greek word “demos”, meaning military. And if you don’t believe it, it’s in the constitution! Well, it’s not actually in the constitution, but it’s still constitutional. ---
**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 22, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/944 "2014-02-22T05:54:31Z")
In the end though, NFBW is probably right. The Islamist opposition was so well organized and such a significant portion of the population, with its own international alliances it would have be nuts to just let them have their way with the beginnings of a new way. “Arab Spring” in Egypt might have brought some social/political advances, we’ll see, but the experiment failed. One side seemed to take far too much liberty with their new power and the other didn’t remotely trust the system in place to change the leadership. Just as well they go back to military controlled sham elections. Give them another 90 years. ---
**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 22, 2014, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/945 "2014-02-22T07:29:36Z")
Absolutely. Governmental authority is too important to be entrusted to the people. Fortunately, we know better. How could the Egyptian people possible know what type of government they really wanted? And when they finally get it right by wanting the type of government we want them to have, then everything will be cool. No more military coups necessary. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/946 "2014-02-22T08:14:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, we know. You’re a strong advocate of democracy, as long as it’s the “right” kind. I will post what I consider a very accurate summation of the pitfalls of the Morsi presidency. Cole is equally harsh on the military and the Muslim Brotherhood for failing to hold together the 'transition to Democracy. My general sense for a long time has been that many experts on that region and its Arabic and Persian cultures have greatly overestimated the real power and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood specifically inside Egypt’s borders. I say that because I have a feeling that the Egyptian military from the ranks to the top brass have had a better sense of what real power the brotherhood actually held. But anyway since we are talking about whether is was ‘right’ for Egypt’s ruling military to suspend the democratic process, does anyone think that Juan Cole’s summary is a realistic enough narrative to be used use it as a determinant for basis that the military was most likely ‘right’ to decide to do what they did to end the transitional democratically elected government of president Morsi after one year. \*\*Egypt’s Transition Has Failed: New Age of Military Dictatorship in Wake of Massacre \*\* by Juan Cole | Aug. 15, 2013 > **[Egypt's Transition Has Failed: New Age of Military Dictatorship in Wake of...](https://www.juancole.com/2013/08/transition-military-dictatorship.html)** > > The horrible bloodshed in Egypt on Wednesday marked a turning point in the country's modern history, locking it in to years of authoritarian paternalism and possibly violent faction fighting. The country is ruled by an intolerant junta with no... > [@](#): > > Egypt began a possible transition to parliamentary democracy in February of 2011 after the fall of Hosni Mubarak. Although the military had made a coup, the aged Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi was not interested in ruling himself and sought a civilian transitional government that the military could live with. He wanted guarantees that the new government would not interfere with the military’s own commercial enterprises and attempted to assert a veto over the new constitution lest it veer toward Muslim fundamentalism. > > The major political forces said they were committed to free, fair and transparent parliamentary elections. The Muslim Brotherhood, the best organized political group, pledged not to run candidates in all constituencies so as to show they weren’t greedy for power, and said they would not run anyone for president lest they give the impression they were seeking control of all three branches of government. The Brotherhood said it wanted a consensual constitution. > > Behind the scenes, generals like Omar Suleiman (d. 2012) were furious about the constraints being lifted from the Brotherhood, convinced that they had a secret armed militia and that they were angling to make a coup over time. His views turn out to be more widespread than was evident on the surface. > > In 2011-2012, the revolutionary youth, the liberals and the Brotherhood made common cause to return the military to their barracks. > > But then the Brotherhood broke all of its promises and threw a fright into everyone– youth, women, Coptic Christians, Liberals, leftists, workers, and the remnants of the old regime. The Brotherhood cheated in the parliamentary elections, running candidates for seats set aside for independents. Then they tried to pack the constitution-writing body with their parliamentarians, breaking another promise. They reneged on the pledge to have a consensual constitution. > > Once Muhammad Morsi was elected president in June, 2012, he made a slow-motion coup. He pushed through a Brotherhood constitution in December of 2012 in a referendum with about a 30% turnout in which it garnered only 63%– i.e. only a fifth of the country voted for it. The judges went on strike rather than oversee balloting, so the referendum did not meet international standards. When massive protests were staged he had them cleared out by the police, and on December 6, 2012, is alleged to have sent in Brotherhood paramilitary to attack leftist youth who were demonstrating. There were deaths and injuries. > > Morsi then invented a legislature for himself, declaring by fiat that the ceremonial upper house was the parliament. He appointed many of its members; only 7% were elected. They passed a law changing the retirement age for judges from 70 to 60, which would have forced out a fourth of judges and allowed Morsi to start putting Brotherhood members on the bench to interpret his sectarian constitution. He was building a one party state. His economic policies hurt workers and ordinary folk. He began prosecuting youth who criticized him, his former allies against the military. 8 bloggers were indicted. Ahmad Maher of The April 6 youth group was charged with demonstrating (yes). Television channels were closed. Coptic school teachers were charged with blasphemy. Morsi ruled from his sectarian base and alienated everyone else. He over-reached. > > In my view Morsi and the Brotherhood leadership bear a good deal of the blame for derailing the transition, since a democratic transition is a pact among various political forces, and he broke the pact. If Morsi was what democracy looked like, many Egyptians did not want it. Gallup polls trace this disillusionment. > > But the Egyptian military bears the other part of the blame for the failed transition. Ambitious officers such as Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Morsi’s Minister of Defense, were secretly determined to undo Morsi’s victory at the polls. … See Link for Professor Cole’s lambast of the Military. Like I said, Prof Cole has much more adverse opinion of the military than I, so I am more optimistic on Egypt’s completion of a transition to democracy much sooner than what many pessimistic analysts may be willing to predict. I have always seen it as the best least blood path to democracy if the secularists and liberals and the military become one political entity, stabilize the economic situation and then the military 'goes to barracks with some everlasting system of patronage fitting in to the ultimate governing scheme, but one that lets the civilians and the people run the country and the fundamentalists of Islam are forced to respect the rights of others when they enter the political scene of the future. ---
**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 22, 2014, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/947 "2014-02-22T10:23:22Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well, since you aren’t running for office, that’s akin to people who take Magic:The Gathering seriously. Just saying. And I don’t think it’s more “serious” to run down a point like that when as far as I can see, it doesn’t change the substance of the debate. It doesn’t matter if we all agree it was a coup or “technically not”. We all know the fact is the military took over and replaced the leader. actually these are the facts: Morsi put MB in every high position including rewriting the new constitution. Most people refused to work under those conditions including Amr Moussa and all the intellectuals, Copts, church, Al Azhar, women, etc etc etc. General Al Sisi had given Morsi every opportunity to allow everyone who was not the MB back into the decision making process. One hour before the live broadcast where Morsi would agree to allow others into the process and the car arrived to pick him up to take him to the Prez Palace to announce it he refused. Sisi then decided to meet again with Tamarod who had already collected 30+ million petition to oust Morsi. Sisi then asked Tamarod to call for a protest on 30th June to calculate support for Tamarod petition and to gauge public opinion by numbers in the street. Millions came out to give Sisi the mandate to remove Morsi, this is what you saw on your TV screens on June 30th. Sisi then on 1st July gave Morsi one more chance to allow the opposition and Tamarod into the decision making process and writing the constitution. Morsi agreed as always and AGAIN refused hours before when that speech was supposed to go live on TV. Sisi then met with the heads of the churches, al Azhar, Baradei, Moussa, Tamarod etc etc etc AGAIN and asked for their mandate to remove Morsi before the country lynched him and his MB group. All these figures who were speaking on behalf of the people agreed that the army would have to remove Morsi. The army then put Morsi and his leadership who had not already fled under house arrest. The army then according to the constitution issued a roadmap on what was to happen next and the committee of Mousa and Baradei etc then chose an interim government and chose the Head of the Constitutional Court Adly Mansour to be interim president etc etc etc. It doesn’t matter what you call it. If it is a coup or not. The important thing is that the people called for it in the millions and had the support of the opposition etc. Morsi would never have left voluntarily. His ideology is extremism and the call for a world caliphate etc and martyrdom is what he is about to achieve his radical ideology. We were not dealing with a rational human being. The man is a raving lunatic. He only lasted so long because he had the support of the Obama admin and Qatar Emir. Obama and Thani’s friend in the MENA region is gone now and thank God for that. ---
**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 22, 2014, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/948 "2014-02-22T10:51:02Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I will post what I consider a very accurate summation of the pitfalls of the Morsi presidency. Cole is equally harsh on the military and the Muslim Brotherhood for failing to hold together the 'transition to Democracy. > My general sense for a long time has been that many experts on that region and its Arabic and Persian cultures have greatly overestimated the real power and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood specifically inside Egypt’s borders. I say that because I have a feeling that the Egyptian military from the ranks to the top brass have had a better sense of what real power the brotherhood actually held. > But anyway since we are talking about whether is was ‘right’ for Egypt’s ruling military to suspend the democratic process, does anyone think that Juan Cole’s summary is a realistic enough narrative to be used use it as a determinant for basis that the military was most likely ‘right’ to decide to do what they did to end the transitional democratically elected government of president Morsi after one year. > > \*\*Egypt’s Transition Has Failed: New Age of Military Dictatorship in Wake of Massacre \*\* by Juan Cole | Aug. 15, 2013 > > [Egypt's Transition Has Failed: New Age of Military Dictatorship in Wake of Massacre](http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/transition-military-dictatorship.html) > > See Link for Professor Cole’s lambast of the Military. > Like I said, Prof Cole has much more adverse opinion of the military than I, so I am more optimistic on Egypt’s completion of a transition to democracy much sooner than what many pessimistic analysts may be willing to predict. > > I have always seen it as the best least blood path to democracy if the secularists and liberals and the military become one political entity, stabilize the economic situation and then the military 'goes to barracks with some everlasting system of patronage fitting in to the ultimate governing scheme, but one that lets the civilians and the people run the country and the fundamentalists of Islam are forced to respect the rights of others when they enter the political scene of the future. Coles article is very good and accurate mostly. One thing he didn’t mention which is VERY important is the Egyptian army role in the ME not just Egypt. Egypt’s stability is crucial to the stability of the gulf region. We are the biggest army in the region. Egyptians love their army where in other countries their armies are run by foreigners and have foreigners as soldiers in their ranks etc, ONLY Egyptians make up our army. The gulf realised that if Egypt falls then their own monarchies fall and that is why you see the Gulf so involved now in supporting our army and country. Why the Gulf have turned away from the MB supporting USA towards Egypt and Russia who are neutral non war non aggressive nations and more peacekeepers and mediators in a volatile region. Under Mubarak only the elite circle in his NDP were cared about. Mubarak left the army to basically run the services for the rest of us like building roads and infrastructure and building bakeries for the bread to be baked by soldiers for the poor. Building factories for making basic foods like pasta and rice and all the food the poorer people rely on, while Mubarak built shopping malls and palaces and real estate for the rich elite. When there is flooding in Sinai it wasn’t Mubarak’s elite to helped the people it was the army that rebuilt and fed them. It was the army that gave them furniture and food from their own factories. Army made pots and pans and gas stoves etc etc. Most US aid was put into these factories which gave jobs to the poor and made products for the poor. Mubarak did not care for the most Egyptians. That job was left to the army. Right now I can drive 10 minutes to an army barracks and see hundreds of poor lined up waiting for the bread to be baked and sold at a very cheap price or for free by the army. Most people have no clue about Egypt or what our army do. If we take away the army factories and all they do with their engineers building bridges and roads and houses etc then what will happen to the poor? Thank God for our army. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/949 "2014-02-22T14:24:10Z")
> [@Marmite\_Lover](#): > > Coles article is very good and accurate mostly. > > One thing he didn’t mention which is VERY important is the Egyptian army role in the ME not just Egypt. > > Egypt’s stability is crucial to the stability of the gulf region. We are the biggest army in the region. Egyptians love their army where in other countries their armies are run by foreigners and have foreigners as soldiers in their ranks etc, ONLY Egyptians make up our army. > > The gulf realised that if Egypt falls then their own monarchies fall and that is why you see the Gulf so involved now in supporting our army and country. > Why the Gulf have turned away from the MB supporting USA towards Egypt and Russia who are neutral non war non aggressive nations and more peacekeepers and mediators in a volatile region. > > Under Mubarak only the elite circle in his NDP were cared about. > > Mubarak left the army to basically run the services for the rest of us like building roads and infrastructure and building bakeries for the bread to be baked by soldiers for the poor. Building factories for making basic foods like pasta and rice and all the food the poorer people rely on, while Mubarak built shopping malls and palaces and real estate for the rich elite. > > When there is flooding in Sinai it wasn’t Mubarak’s elite to helped the people it was the army that rebuilt and fed them. It was the army that gave them furniture and food from their own factories. Army made pots and pans and gas stoves etc etc. > > Most US aid was put into these factories which gave jobs to the poor and made products for the poor. Mubarak did not care for the most Egyptians. That job was left to the army. > > Right now I can drive 10 minutes to an army barracks and see hundreds of poor lined up waiting for the bread to be baked and sold at a very cheap price or for free by the army. Most people have no clue about Egypt or what our army do. > > If we take away the army factories and all they do with their engineers building bridges and roads and houses etc then what will happen to the poor? > > Thank God for our army. I am not sure how one American like me acquired the sense of Egyptian’s love and respect for your military but I did. I had not noticed that there is a lack of that sense among English speaking experts and journalists and our political leadership going all the way up to the Obama Administration and our Dept of State. I will spend some time researching that aspect of events in Egypt as time rolls by. But I am reminded of my honeymoon trip to Egypt which was one year prior to the 9/11/01 attacks. We were taking the trip by bus from Hurghada to Cairo across the desert and prior to crossing the desert our bus hooked up with a convoy of dozens of buses and what I as an American had never seen or experienced. That was the heavily armed paramilitary escort in black uniforms riding in Whiite Toyotas having a large machine gun mounted in the beds of those trucks. Our first thoughts were what the hell is going on. Then halfway to Cairo we stopped at a desert checkpoint where as I stepped off the bus to stretch - I was staring into the barrel of an Egyptian Army tank with the helmeted soldier staring at us with all seriousness of business in his gaze. Of course I found out why that security was there - to protect tourist from bandits and terrorists which I found they had a very good record of keeping the tourists safe. But Americans never grow up seeing such heavy armor or troop presence as we went about the business of living our daily lives. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/950 "2014-02-22T14:29:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I will post what I consider a very accurate summation of the pitfalls of the Morsi presidency. So the summary has nothing to do with the pitfalls of the Morsi presidency, and you never claimed it did. Right? I am trying to read “in context”. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 22, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/951 "2014-02-22T14:51:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Absolutely. Governmental authority is too important to be entrusted to the people. Fortunately, we know better. How could the Egyptian people possible know what type of government they really wanted? And when they finally get it right by wanting the type of government we want them to have, then everything will be cool. No more military coups necessary. What do you mean “we know better”? Egyptians did what I described, if anything in spite of what "we"wanted. ---
**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 22, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/952 "2014-02-22T15:05:12Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are wrong but you think that is an error that affects my argument. My God, what pettiness you live for. It is worse than I thought. > And it is not an error on my part anyway. Because anyone who is genuine and serious about having a conversation with someone of opposing views on issues would be able to recognize this very simple key word in this exchange. I have bolded the word **asked** where Mace used it and a fair and reasonable human mind would see that I was responding to what John Mace had asked. . > Again, more context: > > And it should be obvious that I was not citing that ‘opinion’ to support a claim that the constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’ because I started my response with… “I have not argued that” I didn’t say you were citing it to support a claim of anything. You have a serious issue with comprehending the written word. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But you must tell me that I meant something else besides what I wrote. > Or is my huge error that I did not write my answer to John Mace’s complaint about the unanswered status of the question he had ‘asked’ me in this way: > > I have not argued that the Constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’… So I do not have to quote it or respond. But here’s an excellent opinion on \*\* THE question THAT JOHN MACE ASKED ME that is a bogus QUESTION to begin with. \*\* See, you don’t remotely understand what I was saying. The isse was that the article you cited was not an “excellent opinion” on that question, because it didn’t address that question at all. It couldn’t, as it predated the Constitution. You _still_ don’t get that, since your restatement here still says that the article is an excellent opinion on that question. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your conclusion must e that you are the ultimate decider of all context… what is valid what is not… so you cannot be wrong when you decide to call out someone even when you don’t understand whatever is said in context. > > What is the error you think I have made that you have exposed… I told you your error: you misleadingly cited an irrelevant article. That’s it. Somehow that provoked this broadside of irrelevant nonsense, because you can’t read and understand a post that consists of a single sentence. I mean, seriously, go back and re-read posts 918-926. See how you conjure the idea that I’m saying that you said the Constitution allowed the military to remove Morsi out of thin air, based on nothing I said? That’s a problem. See, debate with you is entirely pointless. You can’t convey your ideas in a way that makes sense to other people, and you can’t read and understand other people’s ideas, and this little flap is a perfect example. That, even more than the insults, the Gish Gallop, the walls of text, the poor coding, the confrontational and angry attitude, is why nothing comes of debate with you. Pointing out errors still has value, so I’ll do that, but that’s all. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your error is simple to explain… You rewrote what I said to make your point. > > I did not call a coup a “constitutional act”… I nowhere did I state that the Constitution allowed a coup or take over … You removed the context of the weak constitutional condition that Morsi was in… for his entire term. Never said you said that. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Constitutional acts were the moves I cited in that opinion piece about the period leading to the coup d’état of Morsi. You toss it all out, because context can only be decided by you. > Here’s what I wrote, "My point has been that to be a head of state of a duly elected government and not have full and complete authority over the military and then be ousted by the military, makes that military take/over to be more of a constitutional act than a military coup.: > Its plain that I wrote the "military take/over was more of a constitutional act than a military coup. > > Why the re-write? I have no idea what you even mean by “constitutional act”, since you don’t mean “an act undertaken persuant to the procedures specified in a constitution.” You may as well have written “the military takeover was more of an ice cream social than a military coup”, then gotten offended when I asked if ice cream was served. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your world has strict limits… It is s a coup … It is not constitutional … Nothing trumps an election - nothing… there is no flexibility on that principle. > > No wonder a realistic perspective on events in Egypt appear to be batty to you. It’s nice have principles, and using words and phrases that other people understand. You could try it sometime. ---
**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 22, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/953 "2014-02-22T15:10:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > See, debate with you is entirely pointless. You can’t convey your ideas in a way that makes sense to other people, and you can’t read and understand other people’s ideas, and this little flap is a perfect example. That, even more than the insults, the Gish Gallop, the walls of text, the poor coding, the confrontational and angry attitude, is why nothing comes of debate with you. **Pointing out errors still has value, so I’ll do that, but that’s all.** Emphasis added. Welcome to the club! ---
**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 22, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/954 "2014-02-22T15:17:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. > > Welcome to the club! It’s more than a little frustrating when he’s not able to understand the error, though, and somehow decides I was addressing some other point that I didn’t mention at all. ---
**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 22, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/955 "2014-02-22T15:22:29Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s more than a little frustrating when he’s not able to understand the error, though, and somehow decides I was addressing some other point that I didn’t mention at all. Hence [this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=715398) I’m sure it won’t be the last. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/956 "2014-02-22T17:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > (-Human Action 02-21-2014 08:13 PM) But it has nothing to do with the error I pointed out, which is simple and needs no context. You presented an article as addressing a question, when, in fact, it did not address that question. \<“Cite” > > > [@](#): > > > > (-NotfooledbyW 02-21-2014 10:01 PM) And it should be obvious that I was not citing that ‘opinion’ to support a claim that the constitution ‘says the military can take over the government at will’ because I started my response with… “I have not argued that” > > \<“Cite” > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > (-Human Action 02-22-2014 10:05 AM) I didn’t say you were citing it to support a claim of anything. You have a serious issue with comprehending the written word. \<“Cite” You continue to be narrowly focused upon one sentence and abandoning all context. I have shown you ‘in context’ that I was answering what Mace had asked of me. You are in error to assume that my use of the word “question” was about anything other than responding to Mace’s question. I have shown you context, but I can’t make you allow context give you an understanding of what I wrote. You made an error to presume something and now cannot admit that you were wrong. ---
**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 22, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/957 "2014-02-22T17:35:12Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You continue to be narrowly focused upon one sentence and abandoning all context. > I have shown you ‘in context’ that I was answering what Mace had asked of me. You are in error to assume that my use of the word “question” was about anything other than responding to Mace’s question. That’s exactly what I think you were doing (responding to his question), you just did it very poorly (with an article that’s _completely_ inapplicable to that question, misleadingly so), hence my objection. That, and only that. Please stop imagining that I’m saying anything else. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I have shown you context, but I can’t make you allow context give you an understanding of what I wrote. You made an error to presume something and now cannot admit that you were wrong. What did I presume, exactly? That you were saying the Constitution explicitly allowed the military to remove Morsi? Nope. Never said that. Asked about it, sure, due to your use of “constitutional act”, but I never attributed that position to you. That’s your imagination. It’s impossible to answer Mace’s question with an article written before the Constitution existed, when the question was about what the Constitution did or did not allow. That the is the sum of my point here. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/958 "2014-02-22T18:04:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s exactly what I think you were doing (responding to his question), you just did it very poorly (with an article that’s _completely_ inapplicable to that question, misleadingly so), hence my objection. You ignore the statement prior to my reference to Mace’s question after that, where I explain that my response to Mace’s question is in dissagreement with the premise contained in it. I have switched the premise to match what I originally write three weeks earlier. ---
**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 22, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/959 "2014-02-22T18:10:48Z")
What was that premise in context again? ---
**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 22, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071/960 "2014-02-22T18:35:03Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You ignore the statement prior to my reference to Mace’s question after that, where I explain that my response to Mace’s question is in dissagreement with the premise contained in it. > > I have switched the premise to match what I originally write three weeks earlier. For the love of Pete…_I know you disagree with it._ It’s immaterial. Again: I’m not saying you’re arguing that the constitution allowed the military to remove the president. I don’t think I could be clearer on that. I honestly don’t know if you really can’t grasp what I’m saying, if you’re screwing with me, or if this is obfuscation of your error. Just in case it’s option 1: You posted an article, and claimed it was an opinion as to whether the Constitution allowed the military to remove the President. It did not, in fact, address that issue at all. It said that the military’s actions during the 2012 election, while shady and interfering with the democratic process, couldn’t be called a coup, because at that time, the military transitional government was the de facto state. Why does this matter? Because posting part of that article, bolding a few lines here and there, and saying it addresses whether the 2012 Constitution allowed the military to remove the President is highly misleading. For instance, consider the two lines you bolded: > [@](#): > > So was this a coup d’état? If we apply a strictly legal definition to the junta’s powergrab then the answer has to be no. When the military is the de facto state, that’s true enough. There was no legitimate state power to overthrow after Mubarak resigned. The situation in 2013 was **entirely** different: there was a Constitution in place, and an elected government. Thus, saying this article addresses the constitutionality of what the military did in 2013, when it addresses only what the military did in 2012, is not only an error, it falsely suggests that the article supports the military’s action in 2013. > [@](#): > > [State crimes are organizational state deviance from international norms]…despite being legally valid within a given territory. Again, because the situation the article is addressing it totally different than the one **John Mace** ’s question was addressing, bolding this sentence is misleading. The actions of the military in 2012 could be called legally valid, as until a civilian government was election, the military was the government. That was not the case for the coup, and thus bolding this line is suggesting that the article views the 2013 coup as legally valid, when it does not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-civil-war-in-egypt-averted-90-yes-for-new-constitution/679071.md?page=49)