Is civil war in Egypt averted? 90% yes for new Constitution.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

The US is a “tyranny of the [super] majority”. How do you think rights gets affirmed in the Constitution, or the Constitution gets amended if not being voted on? They do not get handed down on golden tablets.

t

Does Sharia law apply under the US Constitution? Read the full text of what I wrote if you wish to discuss this,

[Shodan]

@NotfooledbyW

Why did you cite my words if you have no response to them.

The Pitting is my response.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

t

Does Sharia law apply under the US Constitution? Read the full text of what I wrote if you wish to discuss this,

I read the full text. Maybe you didn’t understand what you wrote.

There is no reason the US Constitution couldn’t be made to be “compatible” w/ Sharia Law. The Constitution can be amended, you know. We could eliminate the 1st amendment through a perfectly democratic process and institute Sharia law. All to the tune of democracy. You are confusing a “liberal democracy” with “democracy”. The former is a subset of the latter.

Remember, the US Constitution did not originally apply to the states and several of them had established religions. The MA constitution had a requirement for church attendance in it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@NotfooledbyW

Would a tyranny of the majority be inherently wrong? Sharia law is not comparable or compatible with my sense of giving my consent to be governed by majority under the US Constitution.

Ok John Mace, where did I say anything against the possibility that the US Constitution can be amended to adopt Sharia Law. I am referring to the Constitution as it currently exists. I give my consent to be governed by majority under the current non-Sharia US Constitution.

I would not give my consent to be governed by a majority that would attempt to force any religion on me.

I do not expect the revolutionaries in Egypt to suffer under a tyranny of Islamic majority so soon after throwing off the yoke tyrrany of another kind.

What did I say earlier,

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of...

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. by Thomas Jefferson. … Thomas Jefferson.
And that would apply to any stinkin religious majority that tries to impose their religion on me.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Ok John Mace, where did I say anything against the possibility that the US Constitution can be amended to adopt Sharia Law. I am referring to the Constitution as it currently exists. I give my consent to be governed by majority under the current non-Sharia US Constitution.

When, exactly, did you “give” this consent?

I would not give my consent to be governed by a majority that would attempt to force any religion on me.

We don’t care what you would give or not give. You were talking about democracy. Now you’re suddenly talking about your personal preferences. You don’t always get your personal preferences in a democracy.

[NotfooledbyW]

Focus on my use of the word “compatible”

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW Would a tyranny of the majority be inherently wrong? Sharia law is not comparable or compatible with my sense of giving my consent to be governed by majority under the US Constitution.
Narrow that down to:
Sharia law is not … compatible… with my sense of giving my consent to be governed by majority under the US Constitution.
Sharia law is not … compatible… with what?

Did I say Sharia Law is not … compatible… with the US Constitution in its current rendition?

No, I did not.

I wrote that Sharia Law… is not compatible…with my sense…

My sense of what?

My sense of … ‘giving my consent to be governed by majority’…

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

Its my rights that are currently coveref ‘under the US Constitution’ that protect me from a tyranny of majority oppressive rule.

Why Mace chose to argue that the US Constitution could be … (at odds worse than winning three Super Lottoes in a row) …made…compatible…with Sharia Law by amending it… is very bizarre to say the least.

Perhaps Mace can explain such abstract and out of the blue interpretations of things I write?

[Captain_Amazing]

@NotfooledbyW

t

Does Sharia law apply under the US Constitution? Read the full text of what I wrote if you wish to discuss this,

Sharia law is compatible with the US Constitution, and contracts are made under Sharia law in the US every day that are legally binding.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Captain_Amazing

Sharia law is compatible with the US Constitution, and contracts are made under Sharia law in the US every day that are legally binding.

Not arguing that it isn’t. What is your point? Have you no response to my response to you? Or is this it?
I do not know about you but I do not want to live under a system where the …law is interpreted by Islamic Judges and Islamic Scholars. Screw that:

Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges (qadis) with varying responsibilities for the religious leaders (imams). For questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, the application of sharia is extended through consensus of the religious scholars (ulama) thought to embody the consensus of the Muslim Community (ijma). Islamic jurisprudence will also sometimes incorporate analogies from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas, though Shia jurists also prefer reasoning ('aql) to analogy.[5][6]

Sharia

That is not compatible with the Constitution.

My response to you was a sincere attempt to discuss the topic. Do you have nothing more to say about it than contracts can be made under Sharia Law…

Here it is again for your convenience… if you don’t agree with something, I’d like to here about it.

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing (Post 17094175) Except that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is the military, with a lot of those liberals, moderates, and secularists, overthrew Morsi, and now the military isn’t giving up the power they’ve gotten. <“Cite”

(-NotfooledbyW 02-11-2014 06:19 AM) What you are not accepting is the reality that the military has virtually little more and little less raw authoritarian power in Egypt today than it had three years ago when Mubarak handed full authority to it and left. The military controls 40 percent of Egypt’s socialistic style economy - and that is real power.

The military does not have an ability to deal with mass protests that can interfere with maintaining a society that can get back to normal economic continuity that will allow Egypt to return to a functional economy where tourism is a major industry that is lucrative for many Egyptian businesses and thus families.

So the military has come full square in support if the only mass protest movement that matters in Egypt’s democracy - and that is the liberal pro-democracy movement. The Islamists that support Morsi could not put the number’s in the streets to counter the second revolt that led to Morsi’s ouster.
So the military joined the liberals and have prevailed.

Because of the violence in the Sinai - it has become necessary to crackdown on any Islamist organization that lends sympathy to what amounts to anti-government secessionists using violence which must be considered as acts war - that also cripple the ability to return to normal economic activity across the country.

The crackdown on the MB and any form of Islamic extremism is as much a part of establishing civility on two fronts. Satisfying mass protests by non-Islamists and crushing all and any violence by Islamists.

The army has made their only viable choice at preserving civil
order.

And it is naïve to think that had the Pro-Morsi side won the true sympathy and allegiance of the military that Islamists would not be oppressing their political opposition within the next months and years to come.

And no - that cannot be proven but it was one of those situations where a judgment call had to be made by the only real authority with power to back it up - and I believe al Sisi made the right call, You obviously disagree.

But don’t tell me that democracy is dead in Egypt because the military and liberal democrats have made an alliance in a nation where a significant majority have respect and love for its military.

The military cannot do things that wipe out that respect and survive - so apparently the crackdown on the MB is not something they have to worry about in that regard,

The MB have bungled their chance. I shed no tears for their plight. They did have an opportunity and they over-reached during revolutionary times and they blew it.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Captain_Amazing

Sharia law is compatible with the US Constitution, and contracts are made under Sharia law in the US every day that are legally binding.

If you are part of the Muslim Community and consent to it … perhaps. But my point is from the standpoint of being non-Muslim and wanting nothing to do with Sharia Law in my personal life. The Constitution does not allow the Muslim Community or any other Religious Group… even if it obtains an electoral Majority across… to impose their ‘law’ on me.

I would not impose that on the Egyptian people who do not want it either. That is where I differ from Human Action. What do you think.

[Captain_Amazing]

@NotfooledbyW

My response to you was a sincere attempt to discuss the topic. Do you have nothing more to say about it than contracts can be made under Sharia Law…

Here it is again for your convenience… if you don’t agree with something, I’d like to here about it.

There are a number of things that I disagree with you about in that post (and I am aware of what you posted, btw. You don’t have to copy it), but I don’t see the use of discussing it with you. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe it would be productive.

[NotfooledbyW]

@Captain_Amazing

There are a number of things that I disagree with you about in that post (and I am aware of what you posted, btw. You don’t have to copy it), but I don’t see the use of discussing it with you. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe it would be productive.

What could be productive about challenging someone’s arguments as you have done and then not engaging in the response? The meaning of that attitude is obvious to me.

See you around.

[John_Mace]

@NotfooledbyW

Focus on my use of the word “compatible”

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW Would a tyranny of the majority be inherently wrong? Sharia law is not comparable or compatible with my sense of giving my consent to be governed by majority under the US Constitution.
Narrow that down to:
Sharia law is not … compatible… with my sense of giving my consent to be governed by majority under the US Constitution.
Sharia law is not … compatible… with what?

Did I say Sharia Law is not … compatible… with the US Constitution in its current rendition?

No, I did not.

I wrote that Sharia Law… is not compatible…with my sense…

My sense of what?

My sense of … ‘giving my consent to be governed by majority’…

What does that have to do with the Constitution?

Its my rights that are currently coveref ‘under the US Constitution’ that protect me from a tyranny of majority oppressive rule.

Why Mace chose to argue that the US Constitution could be … (at odds worse than winning three Super Lottoes in a row) …made…compatible…with Sharia Law by amending it… is very bizarre to say the least.

Perhaps Mace can explain such abstract and out of the blue interpretations of things I write?

Oh, I see. I’m sorry, When you referred to your sense of the what the constitution is, you meant you had no sense of what the constitution actually is. My bad.

Your rights are not protected by the tyranny of majority rule. They can be taken away at any time fi enough people want to do so.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Oh, I see. I’m sorry, When you referred to your sense of the what the constitution is, you meant you had no sense of what the constitution actually is. My bad.

Yet unable to read simple English I see.
I did not refer to what my sense of what the Constitution is… You certainly must go back and read what I wrote.
If I wished to refer to ‘what my sense of what the Constitution is’… I would have simply referred to ‘what my sense of what the Constitution is’. There is no need to re-arrange my words for any purpose that you have in mind.
Here is what I asked and wrote.

Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW (Post 17094651) Would a tyranny of the majority be inherently wrong? Sharia law is not comparable or compatible with my sense of giving my consent to be governed by majority under the US Constitution. <“Cite”
Perhaps you think the Tyranny of the Majority would be inherently right or on the other hand perhaps you don’t want to be seen agreeing with me. Do you think a tyranny of the majority - in the case I am discussing - that imposes Sharia Law on you – would be inherently right and you would be submissive to it?
Here’s a little John Stuart Mill for you to read.

The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government. By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. They consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest, who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies. To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there[Pg 3] should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no less bent upon preying on the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence against his beak and claws. The aim, therefore, of patriots, was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks; by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. To the first of these modes of limitation, the ruling power, in most European countries, was compelled, more or less, to submit. It was not so with the second; and to attain this, or when already in some degree possessed, to attain it more completely, became[Pg 4] everywhere the principal object of the lovers of liberty. And so long as mankind were content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master, on condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm
There is a lot here… perhaps I can find a way to feed you a little bit about LOVERS of LIBERTY - consent of the governed - Constitutional Checks and Balances… that protect me from tyranny of all kinds… and if not … I have the right to pull my consent to be governed by a tyranny that takes my liberty away… hopefully I’d have many fellow lovers of liberty on my side… could I count you in or would you be submissive to tyranny …

Refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants … would be in order… Jefferson who knew something about liberty said…

First you’ll have to learn to read what I wrote to have an understanding of what this is all about. Hopefully you will work on that.

A little more Mill:

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant[Pg 8]—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of[Pg 9] human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

[NotfooledbyW]

@John_Mace

Your rights are not protected by the tyranny of majority rule.

What makes you think that I think they are? Who are you responding to?

[Marmite_Lover]

@NotfooledbyW

The military is now ‘partnered’ with the liberals and moderates who started the revolution. You are right … the revolution is not over… but it will be over when the liberals and the military decide that it is… Islamocracy will not happen in Egypt.

“Cite”> The Brotherhood’s loss is definitely a gain for those struggling against jihadist and Brotherhood-inspired groups in the Arab world, sending a message that political Islam can be subdued by moderate and liberal forces." -Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah* <“Cite”

That is not bad news for democracy. It is the best news for democracy in that part of the world for a long time. SCAF and Liberals and Moderates in partnership against Islamocracy. And civil war is being avoided… on top of that.

But could you tell Human Action that the Revolution did not end when Morsi won the first election. And its looking better for the revolution every day now that Morsi is in jail and can do no more damage to the economy and to democracy.

• “Cite”> Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, a special analyst for the Middle East at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was formerly Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Head for Assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence. - See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/egypt-after-....i3PCTXwe.dpuf <“Cite”

Finally!!!

Morsi’s lawyer has said that Morsi tells him now that continuing to protest is a waste of time.

Allhamdullah

Other news

General Sisi still has not revealed if he will run as president. Hamdeen Sabahi is the only one to announce so far.

Tamarod founders are split now into Pro Sisi and Pro Sabahi.

General Sisi moving Egypt further out of the US orbit by heading today with the FM of Egypt to have bilateral co operation talks in Moscow with Russia. The USA has lost the support of the MENA regions biggest army Egypt and the gulf petro kingdoms.

Regionally there have been marches in Syria supporting the Assad and Syrian Army against the US led ‘rebel jihadists’. I expect they will get larger.

Back to Egypt the feeling in general is the MB are finished and they are starting to realise it and there are very few protests now and life is beginning to get back to normal again. Weather is beautiful and I was speaking to Libyans last night who fled their home and family in Benghazi when US and France bombed it and they said they wished for the days of Gaddafi and his return. They were supporters of Gaddafi not the cannibal jihadists who are now terrorizing their country. Very sad talking to them and they were wishing they had strong army and leader like El Sisi. It’s very interesting talking to the Libyan and Syrian refugees in Egypt and seeing the hatred for Obama and USA and it’s support of Islamic jihadists.

[Marmite_Lover]

@Captain_Amazing

Except that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is the military, with a lot of those liberals, moderates, and secularists, overthrew Morsi, and now the military isn’t giving up the power they’ve gotten. They’re arranging it so el-Sisi will become President, and rounding up and arresting the opposition, and setting up an us vs them situation…you either support military government or you want Morsi and the Brothers back. The liberals, moderates, and secularists aren’t the winners here. The military is, and before long, you’re going to see the same thing you saw under Mubarak. That’s what people in this thread are complaining about. Most of us aren’t any great lovers of Islamist parties. But we do generally dislike the idea of a government rounding up and killing its political opponents.

1. What power they have gotten?

2. Who is arranging what so Sisi becomes president?

3. The police are rounding up criminals just like any other police would do in your countries. You break the law you get arrested end of story and don’t forget the civilians and residents are rounding them up and handing them over to the police too. You think the MB and arsonists can freely torch your car or shop and the Egyptians will just sit back and allow it? Nope!

4. We have civilian transitional government headed by President Adley Mansour. Mansour is not a military man. He is also the head of the Egyptian Constitutional Court and one of the most respected men right now in Egypt.

5. The army and the police are not allowed to vote in any elections. What exactly is it you think they can do to influence the voter like me who goes to the election? Do you assume I have no brains and no mind to figure out who I want to vote for? Do you think that General Sisi terrorizes me into voting with my tick in his box?

Let me inform you of something. Egyptians will NEVER accept Islamic lunatics telling them what to think and do. They are too busy telling the Americans and Europeans what to do and what weapons to send them and arranging meetings with Mc Cain etc and fooling the rest of you because they know that if they try what they are doing here to us we will do exactly what we are doing now. Hunt them down and kill or jail them. You can keep the jihadists with our blessings. Ask Mc Cain to arrange visas, for the ones who don’t already have them, and take them all back to the West with him in Air Force 2

[Marmite_Lover]

I can’t even be bothered reading the Sharia ‘errors’ here either.

[NotfooledbyW]

(-Marmite Lover 02-12-2014 06:51 AM) Regionally there have been marches in Syria supporting the Assad and Syrian Army against the US led ‘rebel jihadists’. I expect they will get larger.
Back to Egypt the feeling in general is the MB are finished and they are starting to realize it and there are very few protests now and life is beginning to get back to normal again.
Good to hear it. Is the feeling that ‘CIVIL WAR is going to BE AVERTED’ and there is a road map to constitutional elections and democracy being printed as we speak.
Keep in touch.

[Marmite_Lover]

@NotfooledbyW

(-Marmite Lover 02-12-2014 06:51 AM) Regionally there have been marches in Syria supporting the Assad and Syrian Army against the US led ‘rebel jihadists’. I expect they will get larger.
Back to Egypt the feeling in general is the MB are finished and they are starting to realize it and there are very few protests now and life is beginning to get back to normal again.
Good to hear it. Is the feeling that ‘CIVIL WAR is going to BE AVERTED’ and there is a road map to constitutional elections and democracy being printed as we speak.
Keep in touch.

I don’t think anyone in Egypt thought there would be civil war. That was all media rubbish.

The presidential elections must be held I think within 60 days of the referendum we had so should be very soon. AbdelFattah El Sisi has delayed the announcing of him running we hear till after the Russian visit but Amr Moussa has been saying he will definitely run and that just means Sabahi or Sisi in the election so far.

The news here is showing the huge welcome for Sisi in Moscow by the Russians!! he seems to be very popular with them. They are saying they are there to sign a massive arms deal with the Putin. To discuss further ties and strengthening ties with Russia since the USA supported the MB and Russia declared the MB terrorists like Egypt.

USA made a huge mistake backing the MB and turning against Egyptians. The Israelis for one will be very nervous about this.

Putins Facebook and Sisi and flags together

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1601316_826743020675983_59447148_n.jpg

[Marmite_Lover]

Reports that Saudi and UAE will pay the bill for Russian weapons to Egypt. The ones the Americans refused to give Egypt after we ousted Morsi and the MB.

Waiting to see if that is confirmed but we did read a few months back that Saudi and UAE were going to shift policy towards Russia from the USA and support Egypt in that too.

USA seems to be making enemies even with their long time friends like the EU now…:eek:
Statement

“General El Sisi is expected to finalize one of the largest arms deals between Egypt and Russia. The deal signals a diplomatic blow to the USA who are concerned Egypt is ‘getting closer’ to Russia”