U.S is responsible for Egypt´s election joke

  • Thread starter Thread starter sister herb
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 56
  • Views Views 6K

sister herb

IB Legend
Messages
9,198
Reaction score
1,026
Gender
Female
Religion
Islam
[ 01/12/2010 - 12:12 AM ]
By Khalid Amayreh


There is no doubt that the United States is at least morally responsible for the scandalous election joke which took place in Egypt on 28 November. The brazen falsification of the Egyptian people's will would not have occurred had it been for America's unethical embrace of Mubarak's regime.

With a turnout not exceeding 10-15% of eligible voters, the elections have been described as "brashly fraudulent" and "probably the most fraudulent in Egypt's history."

The elections were marred not by a small number of irregularities. On the contrary, the regime has employed every conceivable illegal, even criminal, method to intimidate and scare away voters suspected of intending to vote for the opposition, especially the Muslim brotherhood.

According to independent sources the regime resorted to widespread fraud, barring independent monitors from polling stations, ballot-box stuffing and vote buying to ensure victory for pro-regime candidates.

In some areas, government candidates were seen passing cash and food to voters near polling stations.

Moreover, the voting on Sunday saw more than sporadic violence. Pro-regime baltagiya or gangs of intimidating young men were seen hanging around polling stations to scare off brotherhood supporters. One woman was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that "people are scared to leave their homes. Everyone is afraid of the thugs."

Another Cairo man said "it would be an insult to language to call what is happening elections."

According to a coalition of local and international human rights observers, the elections "lacked any transparency and were marred by widespread fraud."

In addition to the atmosphere of fear and terror fostered by the security forces and the regime's civilian thugs, independent monitors from human right groups were barred entry. Some were arrested.

One human rights monitor, who had obtained accreditation from the election commission, was quoted as saying that "the security is running the show.

In fact, one could go on and on and one, describing the dirty game of raping the collective will of 80 million Egyptians who tried but failed to restore their dignity and freedom, usurped by an autocratic and corrupt regime.

In his landmark speech in Cairo on 4 June, 2009, President Obama undertook to repair the troubled relations between the United States and the Muslim world. He said "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect."

The American president made numerous other remarks which promised good will toward Muslims in general. He also invoked the spirit of democracy, saying people everywhere should be able to have a say in how they are governed.

"But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere."

In truth, the Egyptian regime wouldn't have reached this level of depravity, corruption, tyranny and repression were it not for U.S. support, acquiescence and silence.

U.S. officials often claim they are encouraging despotic governments in the Arab world to initiate democratic reforms and respect human rights and civil liberties. However, everyone, including the repressive regimes themselves, knows well that the U.S. doesn't really mean it and that all the reluctant and half-hearted public statements about democracy and human rights in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the rest of America's puppet regimes in the Arab-Muslim region are only meant to mislead and deceive the masses.

One actually wouldn't indulge in far-fetched prognostication if one presumed that the U.S. itself privately asks these repressive regimes not to take its human rights-related criticisms too seriously since these criticisms were meant only for propagandistic reasons.

In the final analysis, the U.S. has never ever demonstrated a real, absolute and consistent commitment to democracy and human rights anywhere in the world. This ugly portrait of America's moral duplicity is illustrated by the long standing relations between the big empire and a long list of tyrants, including filthy tyrants, around the world. The list is too long to confine to a few lines.

The American-funded and American-backed tyranny in Egypt is very much reminiscent to US backing of the Shah's regime in Iran prior to the Islamic revolution in 1978. The US gave the Shah all sorts of state-of-the-art weapons, hoping to maintain and perpetuate his grip on power. The notorious Savak was given a free rein to kill, torture, and rape Iranians while the regime made sure to suppress every gesture of public dissent.

Even as the Shah's regime was showing signs of morbidity and fatigue, President Carter continued to describe the shah's Iran as "an Island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world."

We know the rest of the story.

To be sure, today's Mubarak's Egypt is not exactly a carbon copy of the Shah- era Iran. But the similarities are striking. Today, in Egypt as was then in Iran, repression is rife, corruption is rampant, poverty is shocking, and political repression is prevalent.

There is so much frozen rage and too much police state. People are routinely arrested, mistreated and even tortured for merely expressing their thoughts. The regime itself is increasingly insecure and it often tries to make up for this insecurity by stepping up repression of political activism or anyone deemed a threat to the regime.

An in the midst of this lugubrious atmosphere, President Mubarak is in the process of grooming his son, Gamal, to succeed him as Egypt, mainly thanks to Mubarak's absolute autocracy, has effectively transformed into a republic in name but a kingdom in reality. It is a republic kingdom!

May God shield Egypt from the evils of its enemies, internal and external. Amen.

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/...OR9o8VYXSXmgw8Ndz41H8HF5PuPr6BOK9GsVekcd13WA=
 
So what should America do?

I have the feeling that if America took a harsher stance then there would be people starting threads about America interfering with Muslim governments.
 
And by do nothing with Egypt you mean what exactly?

Stop giving aid? Stop trading?
 
Salaam

Yes America is deeply invovled in Egyptian affairs on all levels. They are deeply afraid of a popular government coming to power that would act independently, the ultimate nightmare for US planners. . . ..

Just one example of US intereference, they pressurised the Eyptians to build an underground wall (on the border) to stop the people of Gaza getting food and supplies etc etc in. American engineers built it.
 
So you want the US to meddle in the internal affairs of Egypt by trying to change their government?

But I bet if the US actually did do something like that then Muslims around the world would be mad at the US for trying to manipulate a Muslim country. The truth is that no matter what the US does in this situation they will be considered the bad guys. Always nice to have a bogie man to blame everything on.
 
But I bet if the US actually did do something like that then Muslims around the world would be mad at the US for trying to manipulate a Muslim country.

The US had war with Iraq, no problem there from the Muslim World.

I agree, US might be interfering a bit too much with own falling economy, but we do help a lot of nations. Hence, we have a very leading role in the world.

I just pray our economy gets better.
 
I suggest the U.S goes back to isolationism so they wont be accused of meddling and causing problems
(which they do) in the world.
Salam
 
The US had war with Iraq, no problem there from the Muslim World.

By Muslim world do you mean Muslims in general, or the governments of Muslim majority populations.

I was referring to the former in my post, not the latter. I think that, in general, many Muslims had a huge problem with the US war against Iraq.
 
I suggest the U.S goes back to isolationism so they wont be accused of meddling and causing problems
(which they do) in the world.

Sure, then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless *******s who won't help the poor countries of the world by giving aid.

Then the day after when do give aid they will be accused of trying to manipulate other countries or supporting the dictators of the countries they are giving help to.

Either way they will be criticized. That is something that cannot be helped when you are the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. People will look at your actions and your inactions in a negative light.
 
Sure, then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless *******s who won't help the poor countries of the world by giving aid.

Then the day after when do give aid they will be accused of trying to manipulate other countries or supporting the dictators of the countries they are giving help to.

Either way they will be criticized. That is something that cannot be helped when you are the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. People will look at your actions and your inactions in a negative light.

You cant make everyone happy and I think you can help other nations without directly interfering in their internal affairs...America isn't all bad but the many wars and support of foreign despots has given america the reputation it has today and not just in the Muslim world.
Salam
 
Sure, then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless *******s who won't help the poor countries of the world by giving aid.

I highly doubt America helps other countries for a charitable purpose. I think there is a motive behind it. I also doubt America will be critiqued for not helping poor countries, its citizens come first.

Then the day after when do give aid they will be accused of trying to manipulate other countries or supporting the dictators of the countries they are giving help to.

America does have a history of supporting dictators and even setting them up, like the Shah of Iran. You cannot blame people around the world not to trust America. At times, it behaved like a tyrant...

Either way they will be criticized.

Then the US can ignore it. Isn't that what the US does at the moment?
 
I highly doubt America helps other countries for a charitable purpose. I think there is a motive behind it. I also doubt America will be critiqued for not helping poor countries, its citizens come first.

There is some truth to that, but to say that the US never helps out for charitable reasons, or that they are not a factor, would be wrong also.

America does have a history of supporting dictators and even setting them up, like the Shah of Iran. You cannot blame people around the world not to trust America. At times, it behaved like a tyrant...

No disagreement from me there.

Then the US can ignore it. Isn't that what the US does at the moment?

If you are talking about the government then yeah, pretty much.

That doesn't mean I can't find the irony in having people complain that the US interferes too much on the one hand, then turn around and say the US needs to do more on the other.
 
then tomorrow they will be criticized for being heartless


that is a figment of your own imagination .. you should get your govt. to try it though for the sake of proving you correct!
Egypt's govt. is completely divorced from its citizens and its neighbors .. any 'aid' that comes goes directly to the presidential palace and cronies. Egyptians are much like the afghans and yemenis self-sufficient and reliant and extremely poor.. the govt. does very little for them.. When a ship of pilgrims capsizes the 'president' can't be bothered for he is watching a soccer game.. we are not even talking no aid, we are talking no honorable mention or half flag.. he actually makes them out to be the bad guy.. you can take the Egyptian govt. and your aid and shove em where the sun don't shine!

all the best
 
There is some truth to that, but to say that the US never helps out for charitable reasons, or that they are not a factor, would be wrong also.

It is fair to say that there are charitable groups and citizens in America that want to help other countries. But I think the government would have different motive and this does not apply to America only. It can include countries like Saudi Arabia, Britain, France and so on.

If you are talking about the government then yeah, pretty much.

Yes, I was referring to the government.

That doesn't mean I can't find the irony in having people complain that the US interferes too much on the one hand, then turn around and say the US needs to do more on the other.

I think the US has enough problems of its own and its citizens should come first. The only country that will have a problem with this is Israel, it gets the most aid and it is already a rich country.
 
The only country that will have a problem with this is Israel, it gets the most aid and it is already a rich country.

No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.
 
Salaam

The US had war with Iraq, no problem there from the Muslim World.

I agree, US might be interfering a bit too much with own falling economy, but we do help a lot of nations. Hence, we have a very leading role in the world.

I just pray our economy gets better.

The idea the US 'helps' nations is questionable given its historical record. Check out

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-a...raged-over-nobel-peace-prize-selection-3.html post #41

if you want more details.

No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.

Nobodys asking for the US to be 'isolationist' (though judging by its record might not be a bad idea) just stop acting like a Mafia don. Stop interfering and let the populations of whichever countries make their own choices and run their governments according to their own needs and interests.

For instance the US/Israel - Palestine conflict - they dont have to do anything that would break the bank. Instead of blocking the a resolution to the conflict why not join the international consensus and work with everybody else to see a resolution to the conflict. its really that straightforward.
 
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.



hate to break it to you but the U.S probably has the largest unpaid debt to the U.N:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-06-17-undues_N.htm

it is time to stop the bull!
 
No, if the US stopped giving aid or became isolationist then there would be major ramifications around the world. Not to mention probably the end of the United Nations (the US pays for 22% of the UN's total funding), Nato, etc.

I thought we were talking about aid given to countries? I would say UN and NATO are completely different.

If the US were to stop giving aid to countries around the world, then Israel will have a problem and it will not hesitate to raise its opinion.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top