Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

Syria's foreign minister has offered to help the US fight the Islamic State (IS) militant group, which has seized swathes of land in Iraq and Syria.
Walid Muallem said Syria was "the centre of the international coalition to fight Islamic State".

The US has already bombed IS fighters in Iraq and has hinted it would be willing to take action in Syria.

Western powers generally shun Syria's government, accusing it of carrying out atrocities in its three-year civil war.

But Mr Muallem warned that the US must co-ordinate with the Syrian government before launching any air strikes on its territory.
"Anything outside this is considered aggression," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28927246

[Paphitis]

Please consider the following:

The state department spokesperson repeated time and again that the US was not backing one side or the other.

But they are funding one side - there are plans to give the military aid worth $1.3bn (£852m) next year, and many senior Egyptian officers are trained in the US. Clearly there are lots of contacts, and the US has a lot of clout.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23167490

I agree with the Foti Benlisoy’s arguments that I translated above, and we should be cautious about simple conspiracy theories that attempt to attribute one simple cause to highly complex phenomena. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the sway that the US has over the Egyptian military. They give them huge amounts of aid, and as they say, “He who pays the piper ...” I do not see how you can categorically assert that the US had nothing to do with the army’s intervention.

I am sure that almost everybody here would agree that, had the Egyptian revolution fully succeeded and not been hijacked by Islamists, and had ushered in a moderate, secular democratic regime, the world would be a better place by now. However, the way that the Egyptian military was always in the background was a cause for concern - they appeared at some stage to dump Mubarek and then were steering events along in the form of SCAF. I have no doubt that the elections held were free and fair. The Muslim Brotherhood assured the secularists that they would take their wishes and concerns into consideration and so the secularists supported them in the second round to keep the old guard out, then the Islamists pretty quickly reneged on their promises and the secularists poured onto the streets in protest. Then the army intervened. It is interesting to note that the secular Turkish press considers Sisi to be an Islamist, but of a different branch from the Brotherhood, rather than a secularist. I think there are striking similarities between Egypt and Turkey in that there is a highly articulate educated secular segment making up about 20-25% of the population, and the less educated masses most of whom are under the sway of the ‘opium of the people’, so that religious parties will probably always win fair elections.

America has been giving Egypt aid for decades.

Unfortunately, the secularist moderates were unable to take control, so Egypt would have been in the hands of Islamist fanatics. The military did not allow this to occur, and now there is a JUNTA.

The officers would have made their decision to intervene. It's not up to America to intervene in Egyptian domestic issues. However, I am sure the US will be supporting the Egyptian Generals and the aid will be free flowing.

The problem with poverty stricken countries like Egypt, the Islamists have a fertile supporter base. They are not ready for democracy.

[Tim Drayton]

Please consider the following:

The state department spokesperson repeated time and again that the US was not backing one side or the other.

But they are funding one side - there are plans to give the military aid worth $1.3bn (£852m) next year, and many senior Egyptian officers are trained in the US. Clearly there are lots of contacts, and the US has a lot of clout.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23167490

I agree with the Foti Benlisoy’s arguments that I translated above, and we should be cautious about simple conspiracy theories that attempt to attribute one simple cause to highly complex phenomena. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the sway that the US has over the Egyptian military. They give them huge amounts of aid, and as they say, “He who pays the piper ...” I do not see how you can categorically assert that the US had nothing to do with the army’s intervention.

I am sure that almost everybody here would agree that, had the Egyptian revolution fully succeeded and not been hijacked by Islamists, and had ushered in a moderate, secular democratic regime, the world would be a better place by now. However, the way that the Egyptian military was always in the background was a cause for concern - they appeared at some stage to dump Mubarek and then were steering events along in the form of SCAF. I have no doubt that the elections held were free and fair. The Muslim Brotherhood assured the secularists that they would take their wishes and concerns into consideration and so the secularists supported them in the second round to keep the old guard out, then the Islamists pretty quickly reneged on their promises and the secularists poured onto the streets in protest. Then the army intervened. It is interesting to note that the secular Turkish press considers Sisi to be an Islamist, but of a different branch from the Brotherhood, rather than a secularist. I think there are striking similarities between Egypt and Turkey in that there is a highly articulate educated secular segment making up about 20-25% of the population, and the less educated masses most of whom are under the sway of the ‘opium of the people’, so that religious parties will probably always win fair elections.

America has been giving Egypt aid for decades.

Unfortunately, the secularist moderates were unable to take control, so Egypt would have been in the hands of Islamist fanatics. The military did not allow this to occur, and now there is a JUNTA.

The officers would have made their decision to intervene. It's not up to America to intervene in Egyptian domestic issues. However, I am sure the US will be supporting the Egyptian Generals and the aid will be free flowing.

The problem with poverty stricken countries like Egypt, the Islamists have a fertile supporter base. They are not ready for democracy.

I don't know how you can state so dogmatically that the US had no involvement whatsoever in the Egyptian military's decision to intervene, whether this was in the form of an outright diktat or just friendly persuasion. I am not necessarily saying that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that this was so, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in this direction.

[Tim Drayton]

I think the Islamists were able to hijack the revolution by appealing to the religious, conservative instincts of the masses. I don't necessarily think that the real agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood coincides with the real aspirations of the person in the Egyptian street.

[Tim Drayton]

"It's not up to America to intervene in Egyptian domestic issues."

This is how things should be in a world in which all nation states exercised full sovereignty. However, the USA is a neo-imperialist world power and interferes in/influences the internal affairs of many countries all the time.

[Tim Drayton]

In a a public opinion poll in Turkey, when asked if ISIL is a terrorist organisation, 70.7% of respondents said ‘yes’, 11.3% said ‘no’ and 18% had no idea
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turk ... rani_.html

[Tim Drayton]

Apparently, the editorial in today's New York Times accuses Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey of indirectly supporting ISIL. The rumour currently doing the rounds of secular circles in Turkey is that Western intelligence has a whole host of evidence linking Erdoğan and his cronies to these murderers and are just biding their time before pouncing. Now, wouldn't it be a cruel irony if he was just doing as he was told and then his former masters simply deny everything?

[Tim Drayton]

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has visited Kurdish leader Barzani and promised Iranian support in the Kurds’ fight against ISIL. Zarif was reported as saying: [my translation from the Turkish newspaper report] “We perceive Iraq’s safety to be our own country’s security. ISID is a threat, not only to Iran, but to the entire Middle East region. All countries must fight ISID terror in a spirit of dialogue.”

http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/duny ... _adim.html

[Paphitis]

Please consider the following:

The state department spokesperson repeated time and again that the US was not backing one side or the other.

But they are funding one side - there are plans to give the military aid worth $1.3bn (£852m) next year, and many senior Egyptian officers are trained in the US. Clearly there are lots of contacts, and the US has a lot of clout.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23167490

I agree with the Foti Benlisoy’s arguments that I translated above, and we should be cautious about simple conspiracy theories that attempt to attribute one simple cause to highly complex phenomena. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the sway that the US has over the Egyptian military. They give them huge amounts of aid, and as they say, “He who pays the piper ...” I do not see how you can categorically assert that the US had nothing to do with the army’s intervention.

I am sure that almost everybody here would agree that, had the Egyptian revolution fully succeeded and not been hijacked by Islamists, and had ushered in a moderate, secular democratic regime, the world would be a better place by now. However, the way that the Egyptian military was always in the background was a cause for concern - they appeared at some stage to dump Mubarek and then were steering events along in the form of SCAF. I have no doubt that the elections held were free and fair. The Muslim Brotherhood assured the secularists that they would take their wishes and concerns into consideration and so the secularists supported them in the second round to keep the old guard out, then the Islamists pretty quickly reneged on their promises and the secularists poured onto the streets in protest. Then the army intervened. It is interesting to note that the secular Turkish press considers Sisi to be an Islamist, but of a different branch from the Brotherhood, rather than a secularist. I think there are striking similarities between Egypt and Turkey in that there is a highly articulate educated secular segment making up about 20-25% of the population, and the less educated masses most of whom are under the sway of the ‘opium of the people’, so that religious parties will probably always win fair elections.

America has been giving Egypt aid for decades.

Unfortunately, the secularist moderates were unable to take control, so Egypt would have been in the hands of Islamist fanatics. The military did not allow this to occur, and now there is a JUNTA.

The officers would have made their decision to intervene. It's not up to America to intervene in Egyptian domestic issues. However, I am sure the US will be supporting the Egyptian Generals and the aid will be free flowing.

The problem with poverty stricken countries like Egypt, the Islamists have a fertile supporter base. They are not ready for democracy.

I don't know how you can state so dogmatically that the US had no involvement whatsoever in the Egyptian military's decision to intervene, whether this was in the form of an outright diktat or just friendly persuasion. I am not necessarily saying that I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that this was so, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in this direction.

I can Tim because at the end of the day, the Military Establishment of a particular country like Egypt will decide to act of its own accord ONLY after substantial support from within the higher ranks. The US can't make this decision for them and if the US pressured the establishment to act in any way, it still can't proceed at the whim of just a few high ranking officers. The Establishment will have to weigh up their options very carefully and they will not be able to do a thing without the support of the Commissioned and Enlisted Ranks, otherwise they would come under popular and judicial attack, and the intervention will fail. I am not saying the US played no role, even though there is no evidence to support it. The only circumstantial evidence is that it appears the US is supporting the Military Establishment of Egypt since they are still willing to offer substantial aid as was always the case for a number of decades.

[Paphitis]

"It's not up to America to intervene in Egyptian domestic issues."

This is how things should be in a world in which all nation states exercised full sovereignty. However, the USA is a neo-imperialist world power and interferes in/influences the internal affairs of many countries all the time.

Yes but there is the other end of this coin.

IF, and that is a VERY BIG IF, the US influenced the Military Intervention in Egypt, there are probably millions within Egypt, the middle and secular classes, as well as the Military that would be very appreciative because the last thing they would want is the Islamic Brotherhood and something along the lines of IS.

There is no question in my mine that Washington prefers and would rather back the Military Elites that the Brotherhood.