Video of the police arresting the Al Jazeera reporters that Amanpour and CNN and Al Jazeera are trying to get freed.
They were charged with broadcasting and interviewing MB terrorists in the hotel room.
They deny the charges.
Looks like they were to me with all that equipment and lights etc.
Yeah, if anything screams functional democracy to me its police arresting reporters for interviewing the wrong people.
There is a difference when distinguishing between and ‘election’ and an ‘election itself’ as I used it. The not picking in you as at its peak relight now.
Well you are wrong then since you just wrote that you can only respond to what I write but you did not respond to the 90 % my post that contained no typo and blasted you in the way I meant.
My point is your failure to deal in context. You focus on snippets and try to find fault. Normally people would ignore a typo if they can’t respond to the larger point.
I never argued that it was not a coup. And re-posting the entire text does not prevent you from focusing on ‘not a coup’ and the two ‘Go With’ that I wrote. If you read the post in context of what my response is directed to, then you’d be able to understand that my ‘go with’ was to let the Egyptians decide what they will call Morsi’s demise.
I, like yourself in your comment was not arguing whether it was a coup or not a coup. That is why you are forcing an interpretation of ‘go with’ that makes no sense in the context of my response to you. That is why you cannot explain how what you wrote was an argument that it was a coup. It was that Obama decides.
I was not taking a position on what to call Morsi’s fate in the reply just as you did not until later. I did that a few post later when I said call it a coup if you like - that is not saying it is not a coup and is when I was stating my point and not deferring to someone else.
I never argued it was not a coup. And that is a fact.
No, just an observation. There are three possible outcomes: I’m wrong, and admit it; you’re wrong, and don’t admit it; or circumstances are such that neither of us as right.
Of course, because you’re never wrong about anything.
Yes.
To the extent the situations are comparable, which isn’t very, the Egyptian military is in the role of the Confederacy, breaking the law for what they and their allies perceive to be the greater good, in the face of a democratically-elected president whose (assumed, as he had hadn’t taken office yet) policies they disagreed with.
Luckily for us, the rule of law prevailed. Egypt didn’t go that route.
Keep chanting that mantra. Your faith grows stronger with each utterance.
Egpyt’s system of government shouldn’t be for sale, no. Democracy, remember?
Ok…that had nothing to do with our discussion, so I’ll just ignore it.
OK. Who was the president of Egypt in 2012?
If 4 Egyptian reporters from Nile TV were interviewing then broadcasting live an interview with the head of Al Qaeda from a hotel in New York and the US law said it was illegal and against the law of the USA to meet and interview terrorists and illegal and against the law of the USA to broadcast their interview from US soil on national TV News channel.
What exactly would happen to those Egyptian reporters if New York police knocked on their hotel room door?
Or if they were 4 Iranians from an Iran channel News interviewing Hamas or Hezbullah or any other declared Terrorist organisation?
Would it be much the same as what happened in Egypt?
They would be arrested?
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
There is a difference when distinguishing between and ‘election’ and an ‘election itself’ as I used it. The not picking in you as at its peak relight now.
[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is how the above reads when translated into English.
There is a difference when distinguishing between an ‘election’ and an ‘election itself’ as I used it. The nit picking in you is at its peak right now.
I know I will be sorry I asked, but how does the addition of a reflexive pronoun change the meaning? IOW, what’s the difference between “he posted a lot of garbage” and “he posted a lot of garbage himself”?
[QUOTE=Marmite Lover]
Would it be much the same as what happened in Egypt?
[/QUOTE]
Your hypotheticals are not good. What would be the same as in Egypt would if we were having a national referendum on amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, and the US military rounded up everyone who didn’t support the referendum and threw them into jail.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s funny is that he claims there to be some significant difference between “the election” and "the election itself’, but I’m the one picking nits.
I’m probably to blame in Post #432. I provided him with definitions of the word election:
No good deed goes unpunished. Apparently, the election itself [def. 1] is what happened on the day of voting. But since an election is invalid if the person is ousted from office (Morsi, but not Nixon), the election [def. 2] must mean the whole term of office, or some other, let’s say, not commonly understood use by NFBW. But who knows with him?
Someone else can pick up with what the the words argument and argue mean.
I asked partially because it sounded from your response that you knew what he was getting at. I don’t, even more than when he contradicts himself and says it is “context”.
It’s probably a waste of time to try to figure it out. And he doesn’t know any more than I do.
Regards,
Shodan
On preview - thanks, dasmoocher - I suppose that is as close as we will ever get.
Is anyone arguing against the fact that the ‘election’ of Morsi to become the President of Egypt has ceased to be effective, ceased to be binding and no longer has any legal force?
Is anyone arguing against the fact that the actual election process a year prior to what could technically be called a coup 'd’état dud not become effective, binding and produced legal force?
If you are not arguing against those two points you are nitpicking. My major point is supported by those facts.
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.
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.
That would be up to the Egyptian judiciary, and/or the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which holds the true power in Egypt (for example, they dissolved Parliament in 2012). They could rule that any actions, orders, edicts, etc issued by Morsi during his term were null and void, and then again they could not, and leave it up to Al-Sisi to reverse any policies he found disagreeable. If they’ve already ruled on this matter, please enlighten me.
Of course it did.
No one finished Salvadore Allende’s term. Was his election invalid?
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.
He apparently doesn’t see the distinction, but crows he’s embarrassed me.
Just like Charlie Sheen, he’s WINNING!!!
Actually, my point was to get you to define what a valid or invalid election is, since you’ve said Morsi’s was both.
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW. “Is Egypt’s military rule ‘brutal’ now? Its tough on the militant Islamists but ‘brutal’ I don’t know.”
Is the Democratically elected government in Pakistan brutal? 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.
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.