Having admitted that your purpose here and supposed value is to point out errors which obviously includes errors that have no effect upon a debater’s argument or supporting points and reasoning, one would think that since that is your stated purpose then you would declare war on all errors even those who agree with your arguments or mood about things such as the likelihood of civil war breaking out in Egypt since Morsi has been deposed.
Since you do not consider finding errors across the board I suggest you have not done your ‘due diligence’. You have failed in that endeavor big time.
Back to the real debate although I realize that is not why you were here. The real debate where my argument is doing just fine.
The steady increase of stability in Egypt that the coup d’état has produced shows the Egyptians may have averted disaster - economic and civil - with one reason being that the Muslim Brotherhood is not as all powerful as many people thought as late as last January. Morsi did indeed impede the transition to democracy following a major revolution by abandoning the intent that the revolutionaries began their revolt.
The more I read and learn about what Morsi did the more I am certain it was an emergency of the highest degree to take Morsi out by whatever means possible.
Arguments against the emergency actions take are steadily falling to the wayside.
Hence the explanation for the desperate search to find miniscule and irrelevant ‘errors’ by anyone who holds the seemingly correct understanding of the recent events in Egypt.
Your error did affect your argument, as I have explained.
I don’t recall other errors that went unaddressed.
Check out this thread, and ponder the difference between winning a debate, and driving the other participants away through your methods. You’ve confused the two.
Human Action I believe posted this explains how my argument was affected by the alleged error that he’s claimed to have found:
You were wrong in many ways . My argument in this string of posts in question is that Mace was pestering me with his bogus array of questions. Your misread of my reply has nothing to do with that argument at all.
Mace is wrong and I am right - nothing changes my arguments by my posting a 2012 opinion that the generals pulled a coup on emerging democratic institutions as Morsi was being elected.
I never argued that the written 2012 Constitution specifically included language that the military could take over the elected President at will.
So you don’t know what the argument was in the first place.
Secondly, recognizing your refusal to allow that context into your need to find an error on my part you are wrong anyway.
The opinion I cited was about actions the military took prior to the 2012 constitutin that cemented their hold on real power. That is true. The 2012 Constitution did not erase those acts that the military pulled off in advance to weaken emerging democratic institutions. I take ‘emerging democratic institutions’ to mean the office that Morsi won. There is a tie in the report I posted from it to the Morsi coup in 2013.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief. As I said, I’ve done my due dilligence here. There’s no point in a further exchange when you are either incapable of expressing yourself (seriously, re-read post 909, and then the subsequent pages and pages of explanations of how it’s to be properly interpreted), or you aren’t arguing in good faith.
When you say that the opinion I cited ‘didn’t address that question at all’ you are making an egregious error.
That opinion refers to the General’s committing a coup d’état on ‘emerging’ democratic institutions such as the office that Morsi wins after that opinion was written. They did it according to the Constitution in place at the time.
That satisfies relevance to Mace’s bogus question as asked.
Here’s the definition of emerging that I believe applies quite commonly here.
e·merg·ing (ĭ-mûr′jĭng) adj. Newly formed or just coming into prominence; emergent
Nope. It’s talking about actions taken before the constitution existed.
I can see why you think it’s an excellent article, though. It argues that what happened was not a coup and that what happened was a coup. But they are discussing the events of the summer of 2012, not the winter of 2013.
You have committed an egregious error. This is a great failing on your part.
That opinion refers to the General’s committing a coup d’état on ‘emerging’ democratic institutions such as the office that Morsi wins ***after that opinion was written. They did it according to the Constitution in place at the time.***That satisfies relevance to Mace’s bogus question as asked.
Here’s the definition of emerging that I believe applies quite commonly here.
e·merg·ing (ĭ-mûr′jĭng) adj. Newly formed or just coming into prominence; emergent
I apologize for not bolding the several phrases that indicate the writer was talking about actions taken before the ***2012 Constitution ***existed.
Perhaps you can get it now?
The words ‘emerging democratic institutions’ ties the opinion expressed to the constitutionality of the military’s actions to increase their power and authority over
‘emerging democratic institutions’ as well as in the Constitution that was not affirmed until 2012.
Human Action was wrong to declare that the opinion I posted ‘didn’t address that question at all’ … you know, your ‘bogus’ question that is not based on the facts.
That reminds me. Where is the cite where I said anything was written in the constitution - in any constitution, The 2013 Constitution, the 2012 or any Constitution that existed in Egypt. I did not argue what you claimed I was arguing. And you can’t find a quote where I have.
Not masterful - just facts and reason are on my side. It ain’t that difficult.
Nothing to debate? You must have come to agree that civil war has been averted in Egypt? That is good right?
A danger to democracy ‘fool’ is gone.
The Constitution did not have to ok this… a second mass protest demanded this:
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), headed by armed forces chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, said:
"We swear to God that we will sacrifice even our blood for Egypt and its people, to defend them against any terrorist, radical or fool."
With the Ukraine catching all the non-Olympic attention last week and perhaps only sporadic violence in the Sinai - the story in Egypt is not over… Could any of this possibly be true… What if it is true? Was the coup d’état justified to save Egypt from this Islamist?
Absolutely. That’s why I asked if any of this could possibly be true. I believe Morsi made plenty of undemocratic public moves and unsound alliances that spurred mass protests and calls for his immediate resignation. It was the demands of millions in
the streets plus the hopeless deterioration of the economy that justified removing Morsi from office. So is there a reason to trump up charges like this after the fact? Do they need to go for the death penalty because Morsi appears to be a simple politically incompetent fool who had no sense of the revolution that landed him in the into an office where he was supposed to lead Egypt for all Egyptians not just the ideologu if Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists who share that ideology?
Since you can’t arrest someone for being a bad economist and arresting him is the surest way to keep him from going around demanding back the presidency, yes there’s plenty of reasons to trump up some charges.
He stacked the legislature with Islamists and placed his decisions above judicial review:
(After Moves on New Constitution, Protesters Gather in Cairo … www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/world/middleeast/after-moves…
[Nov 30, 2012] … powers that shield his decisions from judicial review. … placing his decisions above …)
With the protests and the crippled economy there was no time for impeachment if that process was politically and legitimately possible.
A point was reached very quickly with the passage of the new constitution giving the military an ok for removing Morsi. The coup was celebrated as much as removing Mubarak. Morsi could go around demanding his office back but the fool would look more foolish than he was while in office. The man had no real power or mandate to do what he was doing during his first year in office.
The military suspended the constitution and could hold Morsi for a long while on the basis of maintaining order and eliminating any civil violence that his freedom might have promoted.