I can read. It is obvious that Shodan cites half a dozen words out of probably a hundred and totally ignores 94 of them. That is not conducive to comprehension or making a valid argument. If you think it is explain how so?
No one is going to prove the same thing to you over and over again. No one wants to repeat cites that you ignore, and then ask for again. The proof has been given. Everyone except you accepts it. You are, quite simply, wrong.
However, you do have an uncanny ability to unite posters against you from all across the political spectrum-- from the most liberal to the most conservative. That is quite a feat!
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW I do not ‘now’ agree that what happened to Morsi was a coup because I have never argued that it was not a coup.
Shodan changed my words from ‘never argued’ that It was not coup to ‘never viewed’ that it was not a coup.
Where I said I didn’t view it as a coup it was in the context of applying that law. That is not arguing that it was never a coup. That is arguing a view that the term military coup may not apply to that law on US aid.
So where have I argued that it was not coup since you wont accept the context of my view that it was not necessary to call it a coup in the legal context of US aid law.
I am not sure if Obama ever called it a coup anyway because in the end it didnt matter anyway.
I’m just wondering why Shodan and others think it is proper to drop context from anyone’s comments on a forum called great debates.
You have No cites … You have No proof… That I tried to hand wave away that there was a military coup.
I re-posted my comment where I said it ‘was a military coup’ and you have the audacity to tell me that I didn’t write that. I cited my own post. And then you tell me that cites I have been posted that prove I tried to hand wave away that there was military coup.
I asked specifically for a cite where I said that. No one can produce it.
Now you expect me to believe that you posted it.
I’ll say it again as I told Shodan. I have never argued that there was no military coup in Egypt that ousted Morsi.
Having a bunch of silly posters unite in making the same errors does not negate all their errors.
If you think I said that - cite it and respond to it.
I have never argued that it was not a coup, so you are in error again.
Does what to everyone? Do you have a specific example? And when have you try to
Engage me. Jumping in - saying what is what with no backup is not - engaging - it’s I’m here - I’m right - you are wrong - I’m gone.
[my bold] You’ve used that word before.
OK. Here’s your context and the posts in full:
And:
[my bolding]
Saying the military was justified in negating the election and Morsi failed the revolution by lying does not negate the fact that you have demonstrably contradicted yourself.
You have said X [That the election was not valid because Morsi lied–“The leader that won the election was not aligned with the revolutionary vision and made false promises about moderation to win. Those lies negated the validity of the first election.”] and then you say: I have not said X.
The posters here are NotfooledbyX. Go ahead and hand wave that no one has any comprehension about what you actually wrote. Let’s hear from all the posters who agree with NotfooledbyW that he did not say the election was invalid because Morsi lied. Or are you going to claim it doesn’t count because, while technically true, you did not use the exact words: “the election was invalid because Morsi lied to get votes.” but instead “The leader that won the election was not aligned with the revolutionary vision and made false promises about moderation to win. Those lies negated the validity of the first election.”
You’re not fooling anyone.
Oops. I did make a misquote:
Should be:
And:
Inserted quote boxes incorrectly. Sorry.
I wrote and Dasmoocher bolded it in full context: “The leader that won the election was not aligned with the revolutionary vision and made false promises about moderation to win. Those lies negated the validity of the first election.” There I am saying the first free election was valid. And it was valid when it was held. The revolutionaries in Egypt did not know that Morsi was a liar until after Morsi began governing in sympathy not with the revolution but with Islamists, extremists and with terrorists.
Then Dasmoocher cites this in context. “I have not said the election was invalid because Morsi lied to get votes” and the context is pretty much the same as I explain again above. There is no difference in both cites. In both cases the election itself was valid.
It doesn’t matter if the election was made “invalid” the day it was held or 1 year later. You said what you said-- that Morsi’s lies made the election invalid. That’s why you think the coup that was not a coup but was an unusual coup that was more like a constitutional act, was justified.
Still waiting for you to cite the part of the constitution that says the military gets to take over.
And you wonder why people don’t follow your arguments: The election is valid. Then it is not because of Morsi’s lies. Then I never said the election was invalid because of Morsi’s lies.
“Those lies negated the validity of the first election.” [These were Morsi’s lies, correct?]
“I have not said the election was invalid because Morsi lied to get votes”
“There is no difference in both cites. In both cases the election itself was valid.”–(Except, apparently, when lies negate the validity of the election.)
Is this some bizarre parsing of your point that we should take “negated the validity” as not meaning “invalid”?
Or, the election is a specific event that occurred on a specific day when people voted (definition 1 below), and not the political choice of the voting into office of Morsi (definition 2 below)?
election (plural elections)
-
A process of choosing a leader, members of parliament, councillors or other representatives by popular vote.
*The parliamentary elections will be held in March.* -
The choice of a leader or representative by popular vote.
*The election of John Smith was due to his broad appeal*
Let’s see who agrees with you.
As much as I feel for the Egyptian people, and wish them the very best, the idea that Morsi, a member of THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, wasn’t going to tilt the country in an Islamist direction is, well, laughable. I don’t care what he said during the election. It was THE MUSLIM FREAKIN’ BROTHERHOOD!!!
But,…, but we’ve had people on this site who’ve insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood is no different than the Christian Democrats in Europe???
This is rich. NFBW goes and resurrects the thread I quoted above, saying:
He “accidentally” leaves out the fact that he also said, per my quote “I’ll go with what an Egyptian says about it”.
I suppose next he’s going to tell us that he didn’t actually "argue"t the point, but just mentioned it in passing. Perhaps we can get the name of this forum changed to “Things We Mention in Passing”.
Here’s your big ‘not-find’ of a quote by me where I supposedly am arguing that there was no military coup:
!!! Thread: Cutting off aid to Egypt is the law/ Post #54 07-10-2013, 07:30 PM by NotfooledbyW;
Quote: 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.
NotfooledbyW: “I’ll go with what an Egyptian thinks about it:”
Quote: 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: http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/peop...n-saadawi.html. !!!
It’s clear I was arguing against your point that Obama was the one to decide if it was a coup by telling you it was up to the Egyptians to decide. So I provided a view from an Egyptian revolutionary who holds an opinion that it was not a coup D’état.
On this post I did not argue that it was not a coup D’état, I argued that my view is to let the Egyptians decide what they wish to call it. It’s their country, their lives, their freedoms and their revolution.
But your silliness continues that I have argued somewhere that there was no coup D’état in Egypt last summer. I pointed out following this post that you can call it a coup D’état if you like. The revolutionary I cited chooses not to call it that but I clearly state at the time that it can be called a coup but the label does not really matter in the larger perspective.
That is not in any way shape or form my argument that a coup D’état did not take place. And recently I have stated that it was technically a coup D’état which moves you further deeper into error.
Why do so many here follow you down the path of error
Ugh. You should have taken my advice and used the “mentioning in passing” excuse. That’s a lot better than the lame-o excuse you gave. You weren’t arguing it wasn’t a coup, you were arguing that you agreed with an Egyptian who said it wasn’t a coup.
As hard is at might be to imagine, your posts are sinking to new low.
The answer is obvious Everyone else is wrong, and you’re correct!
There is no need for you to re-write my response. I stated a fact that is irrefutable. I did not argue that it was not a coup D’état. Your claim that I did argue that is a huge error on your part because it is not true.
Oh, I see. How can I have been so wrong? WHen you said you’d go with what an Egyptian said, it should have been obvious to all of us that you meant you don’t go with what an Egyptian said.
Crystal clear, as always.
The jihadist is wearing the AQ headband. No words needed.
Here he is in Syria with AQ flag waving behind his head.
