• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood accused of paying gangs to rape women[W:58]

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama still remains silent on the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt's new dictator he helped install, amazing!


"Egypt’s embattled Muslim Brotherhood regime is paying gangs of thugs to rape women and beat men who gather in Tahrir Square to protest the power grab of President Mohamed Morsi, say activists.
In a bitter replay of the Arab Spring protests that brought down President Hosni Mubarak nearly two years ago, protesters have flooded the Cairo square to denounce Morsi, who has stripped the judiciary of power and is rushing through an Islamist constitution. And while Mubarak is now in prison for using violence to quell protests targeting him, Morsi’s regime is now accused of doing the same.
“This is still happening now,” Magda Adly, director of the Nadeem Center for Human Rights, told The Times of London. “I believe thugs are being paid money to do this ... the Muslim Brotherhood have the same political approaches as Mubarak.”


Read more: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood accused of paying gangs to rape women | Fox News


Another link if you hate FOX to much to look.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3617303.ece


Question now is, where is the obama media on this story?
 
Obama helped install Morsi? Really?

I guess the universe I've been living in must be different than yours. Mine seems to lack the hysteria.
 
Morsi is doing nothing other than follow the Mubarak model. Different name--same messed up culture. People seem to forget or never knew that there was some quasi-democracy in Egypt before the Arab Spring. We have change without a difference there. Perhaps if the US had shown some real leadership......
 
What could the US have done differently to avoid this situation?
 
People who think real democracy or anything close to it is going to spring up anywhere in that part of the world need to take a step back and let reality sink in. Our culture is living in the 21st century. Their culture is stuck somewhere around 950 a.d. Arab Spring, Muslim Brotherhood, Little Sisters of the Poor... it doesn't matter who seizes power. The end result isn't going to look much different than what you see in Iran or Pakistan. Culturally, they're just not ready for it.
 
What could the US have done differently to avoid this situation?

Exactly. This wasn't about us, not much we could do to avoid this short of invading.
 
Obama helped install Morsi? Really?

I guess the universe I've been living in must be different than yours. Mine seems to lack the hysteria.

I heard he voted for Morsi. :mrgreen:
 
Obama helped install Morsi? Really?

I guess the universe I've been living in must be different than yours. Mine seems to lack the hysteria.

You are missing the point. Obama was very vocal during the protest against Mubarak, why so quiet now?

“this moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise.” He also called on the Egyptian government to end the blocking of the Internet, including social networking sites that protesters have used to organize."


"Furthermore, the process must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties," Obama said. "It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that's not only grounded in democratic principles but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people."



"The president made his brief but forceful remarks at the end of a tense day of drama during which televisions around the world broadcast images of rioting protesters intent on ending Mubarak's 30-year rule, for many in the country a reign of poverty and repression."

The U.S. president said he wanted to be “very clear” that Egyptian authorities must refrain from violence against peaceful protesters. He also said the demonstrations must be non-violent.


So now with rape squads attacking female protesters what do we hear from obama? Cricket Sound - YouTube
 
You are missing the point. Obama was very vocal during the protest against Mubarak, why so quiet now?

Arab spring was something that didn't happen before and was news. The whole world hoped for REAL good change in the Arab world because of this.

So now with rape squads attacking female protesters what do we hear from obama? Cricket Sound - YouTube

There is constant rape going on in Africa, do you want Obama to speak about that? There is attrocities being commited ALL OVER the world, should Obama talk about that as well?

Tell you what, why don't you provide a complete listing of what you feel the president SHOULD or SHOULD not comment on ok?
 
Arab spring was something that didn't happen before and was news. The whole world hoped for REAL good change in the Arab world because of this.



There is constant rape going on in Africa, do you want Obama to speak about that? There is attrocities being commited ALL OVER the world, should Obama talk about that as well?

Tell you what, why don't you provide a complete listing of what you feel the president SHOULD or SHOULD not comment on ok?

When obama inserted himself and his opinion during the Egyptian uprising he took ownership and now has a responsibility to comment on the aftermath of what he helped create.
 
When obama inserted himself and his opinion during the Egyptian uprising he took ownership and now has a responsibility to comment on the aftermath of what he helped create.

Umm, no, he has NO obligation to talk about EVERYTHING that happens when he had very little to do with it.

I do believe the people responsible for the Arab Spring in Egypt were THE PEOPLE IN EGYPT.

It's funny how conservatives, even though Al-Qaeda moved into Iraq AFTER the U.S. DIRECTLY got involved in Iraq, were supportive because conservatives said at least a horrible dictator was removed. However, when Obama helped (indirectly and not with a huge U.S. military force) the people oust their dictator in Egypt, conservatives now blame Obama.

What a tangled web that conservtives weave sometimes. Conservatives talk about freedom of choice, but now would rather have the dictator have stayed in Egypt.
 
Last edited:
Install a puppet dictator and create a police force in Egypt similar to Savak.

Ahh yes, just like the US did during Operation Ajax in 1953, when they overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. The blowback from that is something we are witnessing today. And we wonder why they hate us? You can't meddle in the internal affairs of another nation and attempt to rule them by force without ending up with the kluster (insert f word here), that is Iran, and would also be Egypt, if we followed your advise. Whether you like or hate Ron Paul, he hit the nail dead on when he talked about it.
 
Maybe inroads for the ME branch of Planned Parenthood? :lol:

See, selling abortion to Muslims might be difficult. But if there is a question of "what about rape cases?", well then...

What? It's the common argument we get here all the time. Abortion on demand, one side doesn't agree, but rape and incest are a very small percentage. We all know it, both sides know the score. The R&I question is just a gotcha game. We all know the real intent, the exception is the shield. Kind of like Hamas hiding within the civilians and then making a big deal out of civilian deaths. Of course there will be deaths when you are using them for shields. But then you can use the passive aggressive argument to demonize the opposition. It's a good tactic for lawyers and liars and seems to serve the purpose just fine.
 
Umm, no, he has NO obligation to talk about EVERYTHING that happens when he had very little to do with it.

I do believe the people responsible for the Arab Spring in Egypt were THE PEOPLE IN EGYPT.

It's funny how conservatives, even though Al-Qaeda moved into Iraq AFTER the U.S. DIRECTLY got involved in Iraq, were supportive because conservatives said at least a horrible dictator was removed. However, when Obama helped (indirectly and not with a huge U.S. military force) the people oust their dictator in Egypt now blame Obama.

What a tangled web that conservtives weave sometimes.

I'm not a conservative and disagreed with the Iraq war as far as nation building went. My philosophy was go in and kill the right people, break the right things and then get out. As we left I would say, whoever takes this piece of crap country over, if you act like Saddam we will be back. I have enjoyed our debate this morning, you are one of the rare people in here that can discuss an issue without couching everything in personal attacks, I have to get busy though. Have a good day.
 
I'm not a conservative and disagreed with the Iraq war as far as nation building went. My philosophy was go in and kill the right people, break the right things and then get out. As we left I would say, whoever takes this piece of crap country over, if you act like Saddam we will be back. I have enjoyed our debate this morning, you are one of the rare people in here that can discuss an issue without couching everything in personal attacks, I have to get busy though. Have a good day.

Sorry, got you confused with another poster's views on Iraq. My apologies.

I agree mostly with what you said except for just leaving after we bomb the right people. Power vacuums are very dangerous things and unpredictable.

I agree wtih going into Afghanistan because the U.S. was directly attacked by terrorists the Afghanistan government was harboring. I don't think we should have gone into Iraq though for the main reason that terrorists moved in like they did afterwords. Also, my fear is that the Iraq government at some point will become just as corrupt as Saddam eventually.

Anyways, have a good day! :2wave:
 
Morsi is doing nothing other than follow the Mubarak model. Different name--same messed up culture. People seem to forget or never knew that there was some quasi-democracy in Egypt before the Arab Spring. We have change without a difference there. Perhaps if the US had shown some real leadership......

Right Wing Definition of 'real leadership' - intervention in the domestic affairs of another nation in order to benefit the United States. The Caveat to that definition is that it only constitutes 'real leadership' if it turns out well. If it doesn't, it's bad leadership.
 
What could the US have done differently to avoid this situation?

Not get involved...if we wanted to get involved, put boots on the ground.

I voted for not getting involved and cut off funding.
 
I'm not a conservative ...

Sorry, I couldn't read anything after that opening. If you aren't right wing in your posts, the pope is a southern baptist.
 
Perhaps if the US had shown some real leadership......

The only REAL CHANGE that the U.S. could have done was go in like Iraq. However, I'm pretty sure BOTH the GOP and the Dems were agianst this. So, what should the U.S. have done differently besides an all out invasion like Iraq?
 
The only REAL CHANGE that the U.S. could have done was go in like Iraq. However, I'm pretty sure BOTH the GOP and the Dems were agianst this. So, what should the U.S. have done differently besides an all out invasion like Iraq?

Pick the side that was most pro-West and give them tons of money/crap to give away to buy votes. It is the core of DNC strategy here in the US so I would think you would get that......
 
Pick the side that was most pro-West and give them tons of money/crap to give away to buy votes. It is the core of DNC strategy here in the US so I would think you would get that......

Ah so it's ok to be a ruthless dictator that shoots his own civilians as long as the dictator is Pro-West, got it thanks for the clarification.
 
Right Wing Definition of 'real leadership' - intervention in the domestic affairs of another nation in order to benefit the United States. The Caveat to that definition is that it only constitutes 'real leadership' if it turns out well. If it doesn't, it's bad leadership.

Not withstanding I am not a right winger, yes if we are going to intervene then we should do it in our best interest. Adhering to abstract ideals is why Iraq went south so quickly--it was the ubber right wing notion that we shouldn't work with anyone associated with Saddam's Administration that collapsed services in the country (hey wait, leftists are the ones who usually have a problem working with tyrants. How weird is that?). The Egyptians could dissolve into the sand for all I care just so long as the Suez canal remains open. I am a realist as to how damaging it would be for the world if it were otherwise.
 
Ah so it's ok to be a ruthless dictator that shoots his own civilians as long as the dictator is Pro-West, got it thanks for the clarification.

Yes. That is exactly it. You may not realize it because it does not match your panties, but if the Suez falls into the hands of radicals, there will have to be a war in which, you know, people die and stuff, to re-open the canal to western commerce. But hey, as long as they die free, why should we have the foresight to avoid their deaths?
 
Back
Top Bottom