The trial of Hosni Mubarak: never mind
Murder charges against Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak have been dropped:
In addition to dismissing murder charges against the former president, his interior minister, Habib Al Adly, and six aides on Saturday, the judge announced that Mr. Mubarak and his two sons, Alaa and Gamal, were found not guilty of corruption.
Mr. Mubarak, 86 years old, is serving a three-year prison term after being found guilty on separate corruption charges in May…
Legal experts said judicial authorities could rule that his detention could count as time served, raising the possibility that Mr. Mubarak could be freed in the coming weeks, despite his conviction on embezzlement charges in May.
Here’s the key to what’s going on:
Egypt held its first democratic presidential elections in June 2012, which Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, won. He was then ousted by the military in July 2013, following large street demonstrations denouncing his rule.
Mr. Morsi was imprisoned and is currently facing a number of charges in separate trials, including treason and murder, which rights groups have characterized as politically motivated…
The former general who carried out the coup, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, nominated himself for president in March and months later won against a weak opponent””reviving draconian laws against dissent as he presided over a fierce crackdown on Islamists and many of the figures who drove the uprising against Mr. Mubarak.
Sisi is apparently feeling secure enough in his own power to call off the Mubarak dogs. In other words, the Egyptian pendulum has swung once again.
This is the trajectory that’s been going on since at least the mid-20th Century. There are really only two viable modes in Egypt, and they both center around the Muslim Brotherhood: the Brotherhood itself, and heavy-handed suppression of it. The very first article I wrote about the 2011 revolution in Egypt expressed concern about the Brotherhood’s taking over, but I claim no special prescience; anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Egyptian (and Brotherhood) history could see it.
Just a couple of days later I wrote this summary of the Brotherhood’s history of doings in Egypt and the strong-arm tactics against it by successive regimes. There really seems to be no way out at this point, as the fortunes of Mubarak, Morsi, and Sisi illustrate.
[NOTE: I will add that I doubt Obama is pleased by this latest development.]
[NOTE II: The title of this piece comes from Gilda Radner’s famous SNL character, Emily Litella.]
Related:
1.
From the “leader” of the United States of America:
“There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction.”
(in:
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/eon1125hm.html ;
see also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393676/finding-meaning-ferguson-heather-mac-donald )
2.
From another “leader”:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/30/louis-farrakhan-justifies-racial-violence-lets-die/
3.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/30/us/st-louis-man-dead-hammers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Sorry, wrong thread….
Indeed.
Why would Obama be pleased? He pulled the rug out under Mubarak.
avi:
I wrote that I doubt Obama is pleased.
“Third World Dictator Is Corrupt”. Will wonders never cease?
Its good to be the king…
These two factions cannot co-exist since each seeks power and dominance.
As for Obama not being pleased, I think he was pleased when the Muslim Brotherhood was elected. It was when 10’s of millions of Egyptian’s took the streets months later refusing to suffer from buyers remorse anymore he seemed doubtful.
Gee, almost like the midterm results a few weeks ago.
Daniel Greenfield was interviewed for the Glazov Gang recently, and in a broad sense he speaks to this idea. He’s much more blunt than you Neo.
http://youtu.be/28J1kYbaqbc
One must not forget the internal dynamics of the current government in Cairo: Mubarak’s crimes are their crimes.
In that part of the world, official corruption is EXPECTED. The whole of Cairo officialdom has its hand out.
Hence, the original trial was a travesty; a hypocritical selective enforcement of statutes that are almost NEVER enforced, political theater from the first.
&&&&
Here in America, our tyrant also practices selective enforcement.
He stands for nothing; so he does nothing when America is violated.
“There are really only two viable modes in Egypt, and they both center around the Muslim Brotherhood: the Brotherhood itself, and heavy-handed suppression of it.” neo
IMO, that dynamic applies to ALL Muslim societies. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is simply Egypt’s version of Iran’s Mullahs, Afghanistan’s Taliban, etc, etc. The choice is between the ‘strong man’ regime and a jihadist State. Often the strong man’s fist is concealed within a velvet glove such as Jordan, Morocco and many of the Gulf States but get too far out of line and the secret police will visit. If every strong man regime in the M.E. voluntarily resigned tomorrow, the replacements would not be secular democracies, they would be jihadist States.
“He stands for nothing; so he does nothing when America is violated.” blert
Au Contraire! Obama most certainly does stand for something. “Fundamental transformation” (deconstruction) of America and, he does nothing because violation of America advances his agenda.
Consider the following quotes by Lenin and then try to discern where in essence, Obama and the left’s actions are at odds with Lenin’s position;
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.”
“Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie (the middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
“The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency.” (qualitative easing)
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”
“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”
“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”
Geoffrey Britain:
I think atheism has been mischaracterized. Atheism is a faith, not a religion. It is a philosophy with a single tenet: rejection of theism. It does not have an underlying moral philosophy. However, as atheist faith is inherently incompatible with theistic faith, and the response of its adherents is often a simple rejection of theistic religions (while simultaneously assimilating many and perhaps most of its principles, selectively). It forms the bedrock of Marxist philosophies, including communism, socialism, fascism, etc., precisely because it serves to marginalize and reject Judeo-Christian religion or moral philosophy. This is, of course, a critical step to secure control in a society founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and with a predominant Judeo-Christian moral consensus.
n.n.,
Claiming a ‘belief’ to be factually untrue is not… a belief. Atheists have no shared beliefs, they only reject the premise that a God exists. But that is, in and of itself not a belief.
When an atheist proclaims that they ‘believe’ that there isn’t a God, they commit a logical fallacy. As no ‘belief’ can be attached to something, that doesn’t exist.
Geoffrey Britain:
The scientific domain is necessarily constrained in both time and space. Affirmative statements about phenomenon in universal and extra-universal domains is an expression of faith. The neutral position is not atheism, but agnosticism. The neutral position is to neither affirm nor reject articles of faith, but to note that they cannot be observed or reproduced within the scientific domain, and withhold their adoption or support. Atheism or rejection of theism is indeed a faith-based philosophy.
W r t Egypt-did everyone notice the massive outpourings of international protest on behalf of the Palestinians when Sisi recently ordered a Palestinian neighborhood near Gaza leveled and hundreds of Palestinians marooned in Gaza unable to get medical attention?
Further proof that the Palestinian problem is only about Israel.