JaaizTech:

In as much as you have many valid points but assuming that Morsi will turn Egypt to terrorist state is not only fallacious but unfair. What is the basis for this assumption A section of the people of Egypt, rose against Morsi primarily for two reasons:
1) He gave himself sweeping powers, somewhat like a dictator (His reasons, to strengthen his govt. against the remnants of Mubarak's loyalists, whom are still very strong and active)

2) The Economy was not doing not well.

The issue with Morsi was hardly about islamization of Egypt.

In 22nd November Morsi granted himself unlimited powers to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure which remained in place and the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, Protests broke out around Egypt in disagreement and on 8 December 2012, Morsi annulled this decree.

On 30 June 2013, mass protests erupted across Egypt calling for the President's resignation, following severe fuel shortages and electricity outages. This was followed by the army's threat that if the protesters' demands were not met by 3 July it would step in and build a road map for the country.

This is the summary of what happened in Egypt, It is quite unfortunate that in an attempt to legitimise the illegal overthrow of Morsi, many have attempted to accuse him of forcefully Islamising Egypt, which wasn't even the focus of the issue. The same tactic was used to overthrow Gaddafi, whom was an arch-enemy of the so called terrorist. In fact once the west does not feel comfortable with a middle-east govt., they simply tagged them with terrorism.

So the question that should be answered is if it was right to give Morsi 48 hrs to meet the demand of Opposition protesters, whom were bent on exploiting the avenue to get him out of power.

Lastly, let me say the word Islamization does not connote terrorism, havig a shariah inspired constitution implies that policies would not violate the Islamic Shariah, and in an Egypt with 90% Muslims, that wouldn't be an injustice, if they wanted it: Policies that may be affected include:

i) Banking (Only Non-Interest banking will be allowed)
ii)Sale / Manufacture of Alcohol may be banned
etc.

UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia are all countries that have shariah inspired constitution, and they are doing well.

calddon: middle east people get mind o! infact they are the mindest people on earth, imagine say dis one happen for niger

Okoro2015: Muslim Brotherhood with their extremist ideologies. Kudos to Egyptian millitary (Mind you they are Muslims but with liberal thinking). Nigerian Millitary should replicate same here, from Maiduguri up North, Through to State of Osun in the West.

funshint:
Pls get 'ur facts right Morsi didn't reverse those decrees awarding absolute power to himself. And he wasn't doing it to protect Egyptians against Mubarak's apologists; he only did it to serve the interest of himself and his party MB. Looking at that, does it portray an image of someone who truly believes in the tenets of democracy?! He was fast becoming an authoritarian. His govt was alrdy becoming a draconian govt which was not inclusive of other stakeholders in the Egyptian project. Its is even fallacious to say that Egyptians would hv supported d sharia system just because majority are muslims. You've neglected the fact that a larger percentage of Egyptian muslims are moderate muslims just like in SW Nigeria while the rest uphold d strict form of Islam just like what we hv in some part of Northern Nigeria e.g Zamfara, Sokoto, Kano...etc. Most Egyptians are secularists who are against imposition of that strict form of Islam(sharia). Don't also forget that the Islamic world is divided btw the shiites and sunnis who hv totally opposite ideology about islam and the division btw them is worse than what we hv btw Islam and Christianity.

JaaizTech:

Obviously,you know very little about what you are saying. If you did you won't refer to strict form of Islam as Shariah. And your response also shows you barely understood my post, I said: "...having a shariah inspired constitution implies that policies would not violate the Islamic Shariah, and in an Egypt with 90% Muslims, that wouldn't be an injustice, if they wanted it". "If they wanted it" implied if the people of Egypt wanted it or if they voted for it.
And lastly, you should be the one to get your fact rights: Here are the sources:
Egypt: Mohamed Morsi cancels decree that gave him sweeping powers - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/09/egypt-mohamed-morsi-cancels-decree

Egypt's Morsi annuls orders giving him sweeping powers, but keeps Dec. 15 constitution vote - http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/08/15776159-egypts-morsi-annuls-orders-giving-him-sweeping-powers-but-keeps-dec-15-constitution-vote?lite

jp philips:


can you tell us who this man Adel al-Khayat was in Egypt before the fall of the Morsi regime?
there was no doubt that Morsi increased the Islamic brotherhood influence in his appointments, 10 out of 27 appointments went to the brotherhood, not just floor members but Generals who have ties with Islamic radicals, so your claim that Islamic radicalization was not the agenda, may be true but the facts before us speak otherwise.
GI whose members were appointed by Morsi orchestrated the 1997 attack on tourists in Luxur, GI has long been recognized as a terrorist organization.

you are right with the other points though but you must understand that middle east governance is not fueled by how good or tough he is but how well he carries the perception of the people.
How would you feel if tompolo was appointed a Minister or Governor (as the case was in Egypt) in GEJ's regime?

The ugly side of it is that the new appointees who held sensitive positions were not performing, little wonder they couldn't control the army even when most of them were ex generals.

their incompetence led to shortages and a total wrap down of the Egyptian economy which provoked the masses, (Egyptians are not Nigerians who suffer and smile, they suffer and bite, hope you know the difference)

about the military intervention, the US funds the Egyptian military to the tune of 1.2b usd annually for close to a decade now, due to Morsi's unpopular, appointments, the US frowned and made it clear that they will not fund a regime with Islamic radical ties, that equally provoked the military.

It is apparent why the Military took sides with the Morsi opposition.

though you have some valid points up there but kindly put things in the right perspective.

the US funds the Egyptian military to the tune of 1.2b usd annually for close to a decade now, due to Morsi's unpopular, appointments, the US frowned and made it clear that they will not fund a regime with Islamic radical ties, that equally provoked the military.

It is apparent why the Military took sides with the Morsi opposition.

vedaxcool: Vice President Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who lent liberal political support to the ousting of Egypt's first freely elected president, resigned in dismay at the use force instead of a negotiated end to the six-week stand-off.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/201381563920647305.html

At least after soiling his name it finally dawned on him that this sort of cruelty leads nowhere!

funshint:
Hey mister I'll urge U̶̲̥̅̊ not to be blinded by whatever the western media(CNN and Aljazeera) might be saying. Egyptian military is quite different from what we have in Nigeria. Egyptian military are loved and respected by the people. Infact they so much repose a lot of confidence in them that they consider them the custodian of Egyptian politics. Fine the people actually elected Mosi into power but they later realised that they've made a mistake based on these reasons:
1. Morsi passed a decree aloting absolute power to himself; thus any decision taken by him cannot be questioned or reversed. Thus portraying himself as a potential dictator even far worse than Mubarak.
2. He excluded other stakeholders from participating in the administration of the government
3. He was seen as been more committed to party interest above national interest
4. Decent into radicalism and sectarianism which was already dividing the country down to Egyptian family units which actually portends grave danger to the future and existence of the country. Remember Egypt is a secular state and not an Islamic state like Iran or Pakistan.
5. No significant improvement in the economy. Infact things were getting worse; thus Morsi was seen as grossly incompetent as President.
6. Reduction in tourism which was one of Egypt's mainstay. And this was due to collapse in security as a result of the Islamic agenda of Morsi and attack on Coptic christians.
7. Muslim Brotherhood was seen to have a far more greater ambition beyond the presidency. Agenda of establishing the radical form of Islam which is not in tandem with what the Egyptian people stand for.
8. General loss of confidence in Morsi and his party "MB" which was seen as not representing the interest of Egypt. Rather they were seen as "TERRORISTS"
Now U̶̲̥̅̊ talk about democracy; d power of democracy lies with the people and if people lose confidence in whomever they might hv elected to represent them; they can retrieve the power from him. That's d beauty of democracy and what has happened in Egypt is still within the context of democracy. Egyptians had lost confidence in Morsi and his party; he was told to stepdown but he refused thus they called on the military which has a lot of support from the people to come and save the situation. The MB whether U̶̲̥̅̊ like it or not is a terrorist organisation. So far several ammunitions have been recovered from their protest ground, more than 16churches hv been burnt; about 49 security officer have been killed, atleast one Egyptian general has been murdered by dis so called "Peaceful Demonstrators". Even if Egyptians want democracy not under MB. They are basically Terrorist who must be flushed out by all means necessary!!!

Delafruita:
whether you like it or not,Morsi is the democratically elected president of egypt.the united states and allies have found a way to get morsi out and now the backlash is more than they can control.even if morsi was a tyrant which he wasn't,the reality is that he was elected with 51% of the votes and is the first democratically elected president of egypt. the military was threatened that its power base was collapsing.people fail to realise that the military controls the egyptian economy.they receive over 2billion dollars in aid from america all because america wants a government that will keep favouring isreal

ogonogo: My take on the whole thing....and no I am not an expert. This is based on what I've read and watched on tv, so, yes, my reasoning might not be accurate to the way Egyptians feel about it.

Egypt had its 1st democratic election when Morsi was voted in as president. Morsi is a member of the muslim brotherhood. When he came to power he started making some radical changes to law making the country a stricter muslim state. Like no kissing in public etc.... the seculiar people in the country started protesting because they didnt want the religious changes. They felt Morsi wasnt focusing on the economy like promised but was turning into a muslim dictatorship. They took to the streets to get him ousted and the military backed them up and ousted and arrested Morsi. Now the country is divided between people who support the muslim brotherhood religious beliefs. Those who support the military for kicking him out and those who feel his ousting was unfair because he was democratically elected. The last group wont rest until his presidency is restored.

ocelot2006:


True, Morsi was democratically elected to serve his nation. But he abused his powers and the Trust of his people by trying to assign absolute powers to himself and imposing Islamic laws on a country made up not only of Muslims but also coptic Christians. And don't forget that his performance was equally abysmal. Basically, he answered only to the Muslim brotherhood, not the people of Egypt. and that's why they took to the street.

vedaxcool:

Almost got it, but you should know the following;

Morsi was elected by a majority in a free and fair election

Morsi actually handed some cabinet sits to the opposition

An Egyotian court voided the Parliamentary elections, leaving Egypt with no parliament

Hence in the vacumm, Morsi had to resort to issuing decrees as means of making law

during the same period Morsi empowered a shura council consisting of every segment of society, charged with making a constitution for Egypt

Before Morsi assumed full power, Egypt military head, Tantawi, issued a decree giving the military more power than the president, and Morsi had to then retire Tantawi and then revoke the decree

The Shura council, then came out with a constitution for Egypt, though some members of the council had boycott the councils after numerous disagreement, then the constitution was put up for referendum , which 65% voted yes. ---> if the majority of Egyptians voted for a constitution who are we to call such a constitution names? if opposition had any merit to its name, it would have mobilized people to vote against such a constitution, but guess what they didn't!

Morsi repeatedly offered talks with the opposition yet they refuse, they even threatened to boycott the elections which were suppose to hold 2 months after the military coup, again if the opposition had any worth it would have mobilized its supporters and those against Morsi to vote a new parliament which would have power to review the constitution and even remove morsi legally from power yet they choose the shortest illegal route because they have no political weight!

I couldn't have put things in a more correct perspective and the debate is not about Morsi bringing in Muslim Brotherhood members into government cabinet, that shouldn't be a debate! that should be expected. The majority of the people of Egypt voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. Even if you didn't like that, the majority wanted that; and the point is that the opinion of majority should be respected.
I don't know what you classify as Islamic radicals, or whose classification you are using or what evidence you have to classify a particular person as a radical. Let us not pretend Islamic Brotherhood is not ready to accommodate Israel the way Mubarak did, Mubarak and the Army didn't do it out of good will but for the 1.2billion USD to got annually, and the Islamic brotherhood's stance against Israel isn't by any standard unreasonable, if you call them radicals for that ... I don't know.

I really do not understand the point of this statement above, are you saying Egypt's cabinet needs to be ratified by US or what The Muslism Brotherhood exists in the US, in fact Morsi joined the Muslim brotherhood during his study in the US.In fact it is deceitful to just use the word "radical" in this context, because all that one needs to tagged a radical by USA is just to disagree with the "right of Israel to exist in the land of Palestine".

As for the economic situation, it wasn't peculiar to Egypt, it is the same problem in Tunisia, Libya, even in Southern Sudan When there is a drastic change in government, the economy stutters before recovering; and my argument is if
giving a 48hrs ultimatum to get protesters out of the street was just, and the best thing the military could have done

ocelot2006:


True, Morsi was democratically elected to serve his nation. But he abused his powers and the Trust of his people by trying to assign absolute powers to himself and imposing Islamic laws on a country made up not only of Muslims but also coptic Christians. And don't forget that his performance was equally abysmal. Basically, he answered only to the Muslim brotherhood, not the people of Egypt. and that's why they took to the street.

ocelot2006:

who told you Egypt's some utopian country free of corruption. If things are so good right there and so bad over here, how come our "shabby" economy exceeds theirs and is one of the fastest growing in Africa and the world? and if life was so good for the citizens of Egypt, how come they're out on the streets killing themselves? learn to appreciate your country Nigeria.

deeptesting:

May your days be long for speaking the truth...

:MH
Simple explanation of Egyptian situation: You won the election with majority votes 5 times. But I(the loser) am saying that you are at fault as you are not sharing the power with me. So I
will not let you live in peace by banging drum at your next door. But after 1 year you are still not giving me a share of the power. Now I will collude with somebody who is entrusted to guard the boundary of your house with arms to remove you from power and will successfully do it. You protest because you are legitimate. But I will not let you protest because in my eyes protesting for legitimacy is a crime. So I will kill you. You are getting killed. It’s also your crime because you created the situation to be killed. That’s the NSF, Tamaroud and Army. But legitimate people will fight for human dignity, freedom, and social justice. Dignified people die once in life.
Pro-coup gangs of beasts don't want reconciliation. They know that if MB and allies
participate in the election, they will never win.
Proof
Quote: Bernardino Leon, the EU envoy, told Reuters on Thursday that "we had a political plan that was on the table that had been accepted by [the Muslim Brotherhood]." He did not share details of the plan, and whatever it was, the army did not accept it: The interim government announced last week that foreign-led mediation had failed. Unquote Now I leave it with all of you to decide based on your con-science how democratic Tamarod, NSF, Sisi, Sabahi, Hazem, Badr etc are.

#80million:
*speechless*
Na wa o

jerk: gory