Legitimizing Terrorism in Egypt

Mr Morsi is president of Egypt through valid and hotly contested elections. I don’t like his Islamic Brotherhood. I like even less his extremists Salafist allies. There is almost nothing to like about that crowd.

There is every reason to dislike Morsi and his coalitions. Reasons include: they would end up stopping the pretense of separation of religion from government in their large Arab country; eventually, they would implement a severe downgrading of the status of women; immediately, Morsi’s followers are venting their rage brutally persecuting Egypt’s remaining minority:the native Coptic Christians.

As I write, at least 500 of Mr Morsi’s followers have been killed in the streets by the Egyptian police and by the Egyptian army. That’s the same army that was displaced through a popular revolution only two and a half years ago. A couple of weeks ago, that army staged a coup to overthrow the properly elected government of Egypt. The Obama administration declined to call it a coup although everyone in the world knew that it was a coup. That was another way Mr Obama reconciled America with the World in general and with the Arab World in particular; through shameless lying, through a lie so gross there is zero chance anyone will believe it.

The army coup was triggered, encouraged, applauded by my natural buddies: The Egyptians – mostly urban, I guess – who are secular, and the many moderate Muslims who do not aspire to a religion-ridden government. My natural friends couldn’t resist the temptation: Take the easy way, ask the armed forces to do
what they did in Egypt for forty years: Be the government, supplant the will of the people as expressed through proper elections.

The latest military coup achieves two things:

First, it will stand as a sort of proof that Arabs do not really want a democracy or that they are unable to sustain democracy. The reasoning will go like this: If democratic habits cannot take place in Egypt, a country with a long deeply rooted tradition of secularism, where will it?

Second, the current massacres in the streets of unarmed (or almost completely unarmed )civilians are planting the seeds of fifty years of future rage. Rank-and-file Islamists will have the right to say,
“We tried their democracy; it was only a trap to defeat us, to make us cower in fear of our lives, of our children’s lives. We now know that only the fear of us will bring the kind of society we want.”

The current repression in Egypt sounds like a declaration of legitimacy for terrorism.

Now, I know that elections, even fair elections – such as the elections that
brought Pres. Morsi to power do not, in and of themselves, constitute democracy. Other institutions matter, some matter more. It would be easy to convince me that the rule of law, for example, is more important than elections. Yet, if you love democracy, if you hate authoritarianism, close your eyes and ask yourself which side is acting heroically in Egypt today. Is it the narrow-minded, bigoted obscurantist religious party that was removed militarily, or is it those who have clamored for and obtained another twenty or thirty years of military dictatorship for their country?

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Legitimizing Terrorism in Egypt

  1. Terry Amburgey says:

    “The Obama administration declined to call it a coup although everyone in the world knew that it was a coup. That was another way Mr Obama reconciled America with the World in general and with the Arab World in particular; through shameless lying. through a lie so gross there is zero chance anyone will believe it.”

    I saw an administration spokesperson on tv explaining that they’d decided it was in the national interest to not decide if it was a coup or not. All I could think about was President Clinton on tv telling me that whether or not he’d lied depended on what ‘the meaning of “is” is’. I HATE being treated like an idiot by politicians.

  2. Terry: The Obama administration is not treating you like an idiot. No one in it believes that you will believe the fiction that the coup in Egypt was not a coup. Rather, the underlying attitude is: “What are you going to do about it?” Same thing with the unilateral suspension, by executive fiat, of some parts of the law governing the reform of health care. The administration is telling us that the president wants it that way, or perhaps, a member of his cabinet, or perhaps, one of his personal appointees (not approved by the Senate). That should be enough for you, that should be enough for me, that should be enough for anyone. And who are you to question the president?

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Jacques
    “Terry: The Obama administration is not treating you like an idiot.”

    It’s treating all of us like idiots.

    This is a serious abuse of power. No administration can just ‘decide not to decide’ to ignore laws that it finds inconvenient.

  4. There is abuse of power AND the administration is not treating us like fools. It’s telling us, “What are you going to do about it?” Same as with spying on some segments of American opinion; same as with implementing laws in violation of what the laws themselves specify;same as with killing Americans on the president’s say-so without even formally charging them, without even inviting them to surrender.

    No pattern there, of course.

  5. Interesting conversation. I wonder if Dr J would be willing to admit that George W Bush (and most of the GOP presidential candidates in 2012) held the same cavalier attitude as his successor?

    This coup was predictable. In fact, I said as much in October of 2011:

    Time will tell, of course, which one of our predictions comes true. In two years time, Tunisia, which did not get any help from the West, will be a functioning democracy with a ruling coalition of moderate Islamists in power.

    The Egyptian military will be promising the public that elections are just around the corner, and Libya will be in worse shape than it is today.

    It’s easy to make these kind of strong predictions when you take a simple concept (“government is not a problem solver, and it often makes problems much, much worse”) and apply it to every social puzzle imaginable.

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Brandon
    “I wonder if Dr J would be willing to admit that George W Bush (and most of the GOP presidential candidates in 2012) held the same cavalier attitude as his successor?”

    I very much doubt it. However I take no comfort in Obama following in the footsteps of President Cheney. I expect republicans to act like schmucks, it’s in their ideological dna. I expect progressives to act like progressives, not republicans.

    • Dr A:

      I expect republicans to act like schmucks, it’s in their ideological dna. I expect progressives to act like progressives, not republicans.

      Now, now. If you want to score points for throwing zingers around you’re going to have to a lot better than calling the GOP schmucks (try something meaner like ‘liars’ instead!). And this certainly doesn’t advance discourse aiming to get at the truth of things, either. On progressivism and Obama’s supposed betrayal of its ideals, see my recent piece (and subsequent comments) over at NOL: “The Obama Presidency as the Pinnacle of Progressivism.”

  7. Terry Amburgey says:

    @Brandon
    Apparently the real insult is calling someone a republican…

    “The independent political polling company NSON Opinion Strategy [1] recently published the results of a case study in which 250,000 randomly selected American voters were asked a series of questions. The details of how and where the study was conducted have yet to be released but the results are clear: 87% of Americans consider the word “Republican” to be synonymous with greed, racism, and violence.”

    ….the remaining 13% don’t object to greed, racism, and violence. In other words, they ARE republicans.

  8. Terry:

    Campaigns of lie and deceit often work. I wonder what the results would have been if Germans had been polled on the word “Jew” in 1932.

    Nevertheless, this piece of news sounds a little fishy. I trust you will take it to heart to give the details of how the study was conducted . I have concerns about the randomness of he sample. You will also spell out NSON.

    Many more than 13% of Americans are Republicans, I think. How about you?

  9. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Campaigns of lie and deceit often work.”

    True. And no one knows better than republicans, they are a staple of republican political strategy.

  10. Pingback: Legitimizing Terrorism in Egypt | Notes On Liberty

  11. Terry: This is silly, a waste of time. From now on, I will only deal with substantive comments.

    This does not excuse you from having to provide the conventional details about the sensational poll results about the word “Republican” you gave us. I would like to know that they are not just made up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s