Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Summarise the internet's view of Egypt for me? Just watched Newsnight (trying to be more grown up), still not quite sure how to balance the mistakes that Morsi did with the fact that he was democratically elected and being military removed. Clearly most people are happy to support the military on this. I suppose I'll be ok with it as long as a) loads of people don't start getting killed and b) someone comes up with a better way of holding new elections so that this won't obviously happen again in another year.

Erm, to put the whole story very simply and shortly, Hosny Mubarak (30 year dictator) was overthrown about a year ago after that massive rebellion which I'm sure everyone on here was aware of, and Egypt held its first democratic election in a bloody long time. The Muslim Brotherhood (Islamist, obviously) won fair and square, and Mohamed Morsi became President. It's probably fair to say that they won because they had pretty much all the votes of the pro-Islamist people, whereas the more progressive, separatist people's votes were divided between multiple parties. In fact, the majority of the population is pretty progressive and separatist, so they've not been happy at all with Morsi's intention to introduce a new, Islamic constitution.

As you mentioned, the funny thing about this is that the conservative Islamists are the ones standing up for a fair democratic process, and the progressive people are the ones going against democracy by supporting a forceful military coup and re-election. However, these people can pretty well justify this by arguing that, ever since he was fairly and democratically elected, Morsi hasn't actually been very democratic at all. Most people don't want this new constitution, and generally the majority feel like he doesn't represent them.

So basically, they've had a non-democratic dictator, followed by a democratically-elected Islamist, and this time around they're hoping they can get a democratic sectarian. Third time lucky?

Personally I think it was the right move, and briefly abandoning fair democratic process seems a lot better than accepting Islamist rule. To be fair, they have allegedly told Morsi he's free to run for election again. The internet's view largely seems to be similar to mine.
 
I couldn't even sit through one, they're ****ing terrible. Most days I'm at home I'll walk in the front room to see my mum and sister sobbing away at one of them.

The baby programmes are the worse, it's the same crap over and over. Why people want to see random women give birth is beyond me.
 
Erm, to put the whole story very simply and shortly, Hosny Mubarak (30 year dictator) was overthrown about a year ago after that massive rebellion which I'm sure everyone on here was aware of, and Egypt held its first democratic election in a bloody long time. The Muslim Brotherhood (Islamist, obviously) won fair and square, and Mohamed Morsi became President. It's probably fair to say that they won because they had pretty much all the votes of the pro-Islamist people, whereas the more progressive, separatist people's votes were divided between multiple parties. In fact, the majority of the population is pretty progressive and separatist, so they've not been happy at all with Morsi's intention to introduce a new, Islamic constitution.

As you mentioned, the funny thing about this is that the conservative Islamists are the ones standing up for a fair democratic process, and the progressive people are the ones going against democracy by supporting a forceful military coup and re-election. However, these people can pretty well justify this by arguing that, ever since he was fairly and democratically elected, Morsi hasn't actually been very democratic at all. Most people don't want this new constitution, and generally the majority feel like he doesn't represent them.

So basically, they've had a non-democratic dictator, followed by a democratically-elected Islamist, and this time around they're hoping they can get a democratic sectarian. Third time lucky?

Personally I think it was the right move, and briefly abandoning fair democratic process seems a lot better than accepting Islamist rule. To be fair, they have allegedly told Morsi he's free to run for election again. The internet's view largely seems to be similar to mine.

That is basically how I read it as well. I visited a few years ago (Luxor in 2008) and although obviously touristy and I imagine a lot of poor people, the country seemed to be doing ok and seemed quite progressive and foreigner friendly. If everything stays calm ish and no Generals fancy trying to take charge, then I think it should turn out ok. But with all the new democracies that have been created, it's not surprising that one's had a false start. Glad to hear my view is roughly the same as the internet and therefore I am officially right. :)
 
That is basically how I read it as well. I visited a few years ago (Luxor in 2008) and although obviously touristy and I imagine a lot of poor people, the country seemed to be doing ok and seemed quite progressive and foreigner friendly. If everything stays calm ish and no Generals fancy trying to take charge, then I think it should turn out ok. But with all the new democracies that have been created, it's not surprising that one's had a false start. Glad to hear my view is roughly the same as the internet and therefore I am officially right. :)

The country is really a beacon of hope for sectarianism in the Middle East, as it's pretty clear that most of its people are progressive and pro-Western. My perhaps-overly-optimistic hope is that it could be a massive turning point for the whole region towards a proper separation of church and state, leading to better tolerance of people who have different beliefs, and ultimately good relations with the US and Europe. I imagine we've still got a long wait before this is settled further east though. There's no end in sight in Syria, for example, and even if it is ever brought to a conclusion, they'll probably end up with Islamic rule too. The sooner their people start to think like the Egyptian people, the better.
 
Ah, I missed the interesting discussions about flat shares/roommates etc!

I lived with a married couple in their 2 bedroom flat for almost 3 years when I first moved to London, its only in the last few months that I've moved into my own place with my girlfriend. They were both really friendly people but after a few years of living with people the negatives start to become more pronounced, for example the guy was very clean... he would make sure the kitchen was spotless every evening, great you would think but as soon as you leave a crumb in the kitchen somewhere he would act like you had just let a 5 year old run riot with cake mix for half an hour and make you 'sort it out' straight away. The lady would often have stressful long days at work as well and sometimes her mood would mean that you knew to stay way out of her way... not so easy in a two bedroom flat with open plan living area/kitchen and I would end up trapped in my room for hours when I wanted dinner!

Now i just have to put up with that from the missus ;)
 
The Suarez rumours to Arsenal are because a load of people in Barcelona put bets on it apparently. Odd. Coral aren't having it.
 
Feeling sorry for Coventry fans, as they are to ground-share with Northampton: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23163594

a 70-mile round trip for your home matches ... what a joke

Because it's so late the Football League haven't been able to match their fixtures so they aren't both at home. Half their home games will have to be Sunday/Wednesday and on a freshly ploughed field, it's gonna be carnage.
 
Southampton vs Northampton... Billed as a derby match in the States.

Ha..! Well the states have a different perception on geography and distances. As it happens, occasionally I'll notice how Northampton Town have done in a fixture and think how well or badly our northern counterparts are doing. As far as I know, there is absolutely no historical link at all in the two Hamptons. There is not some huge Hampton [sorry] in the middle and South and North are at either end of it.
 
Ha..! Well the states have a different perception on geography and distances. As it happens, occasionally I'll notice how Northampton Town have done in a fixture and think how well or badly our northern counterparts are doing. As far as I know, there is absolutely no historical link at all in the two Hamptons. There is not some huge Hampton [sorry] in the middle and South and North are at either end of it.

Hampton Court is pretty much equidistant I'd have thought?
 
Come on guys, did you not do Anglo-Saxon place names at school? "Ham" or "Hamm" would be "village on the bend of a river", and "ton" is "fortified village", so you can see where Southampton and Northampton came from. South and North, not relative to each other, but to other nearby settlements and to the rivers Itchen and Nene respectively.

In the States of course, they would have just named places after the towns and villages in Europe they originated from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.