Egypt update?

[Stavro]

El-Masry El-Yoom, an independent newspaper in Egypt, reported that the initial counts show a majority won by the MB, leaving the coalition of secular parties (El-Kutlah) and the Salafis to fight for a distant second. Unconfirmed initial counts, according to Sherouk mewspaper, show the Brotherhood capturing near 50 % of the vote.

The election will continue in other provinces during the second and third stage of elections, where the islamists are expected to run away with the elections due to the village nature of these provinces.

It seems that the MB will achieve 50% of the votes and will be able to form a government. If they fail, they will have the Salafis as their sidekick in an extremist coalition government.

Should not come as a surprise. This is the outcome of any "free" election in an Islamic state.

[ilovesaintmark]

Wow, what a surprise?!

I would have never have guessed.
I'm so glad that the MB is going to take care of us Coptics.

The United States did such a wonderful job in helping set up the
torture and daily destruction of our people.
Obama, is practically a Muslim saint now.

[TITL]

You're a prophet, ILSM.

[TITL]

Btw, don't you get tired of always being right about everything? I know I would. Haga ti'ref.

[Remnkemi]

ILSM, any theocracy, whether an Islamic state or Protestant British monarchy (who is also head of the Anglican Church) or the Christian world of the Crusades, is by definition incompatible with democracy (unless that state is made up of 100% followers of that religion). I'd like to take it a step farther and examine how US democracy is not that different from Islamic theocracy. If I'm wrong, someone please point it out.

Let me simplify things:

1.  There are not going to be any elections...just an appearance of an election.

Democratic elections imply that the person who wins is a representative of that area, district or country. In theory, all views held by the candidate is representative of the voters. However, nowadays a candidate only has to appear to represent one belief or desire of his constituents in order to be elected. The fact is no candidate represents all the views of the voters. Many candidates only agree 5-50% with their constituent voters as seen on many political polls. So a candidate need only appear to represent his voters. In order to appear like the right person for the job, candidates appear on televised debates and bombard us with commercials. Voters choose and elect their representatives based on these televised appearances. I can't recall the last time candidates had a non-televised debate. Then after the televised debates, we rely on the televised media to "explain" what each candidate implied. I'd dare say that people who voted do not know one single bit of information about their candidate outside of what is shown on TV. Has anyone actually reviewed Obama's decisions as a lawyer, a state senator or US senator before he/she voted for Obama? I can go on about how the practice of democracy in the US is also about appearances.

2.  There will be no Coptic seats won...because Copts don't exist in Egypt.

This is true. But is it necessarily a result of an Islamic government and Islamic elections? How many Copts in the US hold or ever held any political seat? Few. I don't have a number but it seems Copts do not engage in politics even outside of Egypt. We can't put the whole blame on Islam or the Egyptian government.

4.  Mubarak is out...but he was only a face for the military.

One can argue President GW Bush was the face of the military against Iraq, yet Clinton kept troops in Iraq. Even with a "change of regime", are we not just putting a new face on the military? After all, Obama added troops to Iraq and started a military campaign against Afghanistan. The military continues to have power and it is the single largest expense in federal dollars. Nothing else even comes close.

And we are only talking about physical atrocities. What about intangible practices? The US government is known to help lobbyists, political contributors, the oil industry, the insurance industry, the banks and big business. The government doesn't care about the little people. There is still racism, poverty, high crime, one of the lowest education rates in the world and overall inconsistency to the founding principles of democracy. Governments only need to appear like they care and claim change will occur. Hence we have the phrase "Business as usual in Washington". But if change does occur like many candidates promise during their campaigns, then why did the Occupy protests come into existence? Obviously some candidate is not voicing and representing the opinion of the protesters. And what about the Coptic rallies for human rights that has occurred in the last year. Did the US government influence any change in favor of the Copts? It makes one ask, "Is democracy representing all the people, or a selective group?

I just wanted to show our picture of Islamic democracy (whatever that is) is not much different than US democracy (whatever that is).

In the end, I think we just leave all of this to Caesar. If we focused this much on our eternal lives, we would nearly guarantee a seat (pun intend) in heaven.

[ilovesaintmark]

Yes, the parallel is uncanny.

We have Muslim rulers in Egypt and a Muslim ruler in the USA.

[ilovesaintmark]

BTW, anyone naive enough to think that these results weren't cooked up as a negotiated bargain with the junta?

[ilovesaintmark]

This is my definition of a "prophet" that I used to use in Sunday School:  'when you sell something for more than you paid for it.'

Metaphorically and allegorically, 'I sold something for more than I paid for it.'

[TITL]

I don't get it.

What's that gotta do with predicting events before they occur?

What did you sell?

I feel this is another '10% of 10% tithing' joke... 

[ilovesaintmark]

Skip it.

It would take two pages of writing to explain.

[servant33]

This is my definition of a "prophet" that I used to use in Sunday School:  'when you sell something for more than you paid for it.'

Metaphorically and allegorically, 'I sold something for more than I paid for it.'

LOL deep.

[TITL]

Servant33,

Hey buddy!! Mind explaining it to me? 

[Remnkemi]

TITL, you called ILSM a prophet in post #17. He switched words. He gave you the definition of "profit" as if it was the definition of "prophet". But his definition of "profit" inexplicably and cryptically applies to him being a "prophet" because he "sold" his philosophy and predictions on the Egyptian elections and Stavro informed us that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) unofficially won the elections. In essence, MB's win is a "profit" about ILSM's prophecy.

It is by far the funniest and absurdly accurate pun I have ever heard.

ILSM, how's that explanation? Less than 2 pages.

[TITL]

*The Look*

I get it, except for this part:

In essence, MB's win is a "profit" about ILSM's prophecy.

How did he 'sell it for more than he paid for it'?

I have a headache-- metaphorically and allegorically.. inexplicably and cryptically.

[Stavro]

BTW, anyone naive enough to think that these results weren't cooked up as a negotiated bargain with the junta?

You are right:

There is a deal with the junta, and with Mama America.

There were gross violations throughout the whole political transition process since the toppling of President Mubarak till the voting booth count, starting with the constitution drafting till the setting the election standards and rules.

But:

To claim that the Islamists will win because of these violations and other vote irregularities is analogous to claiming that a Kobe-led Lakers team defeated the Clippers in the NBA because a couple of dubious referee calls. It was not out of necessity that they made these violations, it was out of their pure crooked nature that cannot deal with others in a respectful manner. It is like a billionaire who steals candy from a dollar store.

And:

The real surprise is that they did not sweep the elections. Look at the brighter side (kind of) :
The egyptian bloc getting 22 % of the vote !!!! They only existed for 4-5 months compared to 80 years existence of the MB. They had limited resources as opposed to the petro-dollar showers pouring on the Islamists. They were intimidated along every step of the way by the junta-supported Islamists and by the junta themselves, as opposed to the erotic romance between the junta and Islamists. This is quite an achievement, regardless of how much this % will drop when the elections shifts to more conservative provinces.   

The only problem is that in an islamists-controlled country, these early fruits of liberal movements will be crushed. Look at post-1979 Iran.