The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
First off was the attempt by Al-Jazeera to push an interesting narrative, that this was a coup sponsored by the US. However, their efforts have been pretty widely panned due to the fact that their evidence is based on a logical fallacy. The US government had sent money to some pro-democracy, anti-Mubarak activists before the uprising. Those same people are now in the new, post-Morsi government. So, obviously, the US sponsored it.
By several accounts, the credibility of Al-Jazeera in Arabic has been seriously damaged as a result, though it has been suffering pretty consistently since the old new director was forced out and replaced with a member of the Qatari royal family.
I read another rather interesting article on Morsi and his flaws by an Egyptian activist, whose main point was really about the hardening us vs. them attitude in the pro- and anti- camps, and how neither side is willing to talk, or even acknowledge the existence of evidence that goes against their preferred narrative. Nothing new in the history of world events, I suppose, but it was an interesting discussion.
Finally, I also read a piece by another Egyptian, this time an academic I think, whose basic argument was that Morsi was not simply incompetent and tone deaf, but that the Muslim Brotherhood was sufficiently insular at the top (especially after purging the majority of its youth leaders 5 or 6 years ago, many of whom are involved in the anti-Morsi protests now - according to yet another article I can't source) that a move towards proper authoritarianism, if not fascism, was quite plausible given his moves towards the end.
First off was the attempt by Al-Jazeera to push an interesting narrative, that this was a coup sponsored by the US.
Wasn't there a suggestion somewhere - and I have no idea where - that current US strategy was to keep the entire ME permanently destabilised, to avoid any danger of all those annoying little countries discovering they might have a common enemy?
There is a silly semantic argument in the US whether or not it is a coup, since there are things written in US law that are supposed to be done to regimes that take power through a coup. Obviously it is a military action to overthrow one government and put another (in this case a temporary working arrangement) in its place, so its obviously a coup d'etat, or golpe de estado in the more common US second language. And just as obviously, the legally required responses to "a coup" are written with one overly-narrow stereotype of "what happens in a coup" in mind.
I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 23 12 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 20 20 comments
by epochepoque - Nov 16 32 comments
by gmoke - Nov 15
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 13 31 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 9 122 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 5 139 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 3 215 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2312 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 2020 comments
by epochepoque - Nov 1632 comments
by gmoke - Nov 15
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 1331 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 9122 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 5139 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Nov 3215 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 314 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 29144 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 2433 comments
by ATinNM - Oct 1969 comments