Tell me just one thing. What is your so-called INDEPENDANT judiciary doing against Sisi for unlawfully removing a democratically elected president?
Aren't they supposed to take legal action against him?
Their job is to interpret the law and apply it in cases. Egyptian common law does not have any contingencies for prosecuting those who conduct (argued) coups or revolutions. If there was then the SCAF which in reality booted Mubarak in much the same way Elsisi did would have been on trial.
It was up to the newly democratically elected legislative bodies to reform the laws of the land and provide adequate checks and balances in a constitution in order to avoid such a situation, they failed miserably in both cases.
The more Egypt goes under the more delusional you look, but I take umbrage at part of your above statement why no to brotherhood rule
It is this attitude that has fucked Egypt into its pathetic state
The MB is a valid political party with a big political support
But rather then support the democratic system, people like you and that prick el bareide would rather bring down democracy and help the military and deep state regain power and crush dissent because you can't accept the Mb winning democratic elections[/QUOTE]
You still don't understand and you probably never will.
Democracy is much more than an election. The goals of the 25th of Jan revolution (which the MB joined late after refusing to pledge their allegiance toppling the regime in a cross party meeting with Kifaya) were and remain incredibly simple, bread (meaning life), freedom, and, social justice. It was agreed upon that the means by which this would be achieved is the foundation of a liberal democratic system in Egypt, a system in which representatives are chosen for office who then have a duty to provide the aforementioned without infringing upon civil liberties and without acting beyond their mandate or breaking the separation of powers.
The Muslim Brotherhood as the National Democratic Party and the current regime are committed to democratic elections, however, they are not committed to anything else. In reality, all they really mean (these parties) by democratic is that we are legitimate no matter what we do and you have no choice but to see out our term. In that sense the Muslim Brotherhood and the new regime are different sides of the same coin, both had or have an interest in silencing dissent, both are willing to act beyond their mandates, both are willing (and have) to breach the separation of powers and their constitutional powers if they deem it necessary.
This isn't really about ideology, in reality the the MB and current regime have not differed massively on religious issues as proved by the constitutions put up for referendum, both have the same exact clauses on the role of religion in the state and society and both are pretty much take verbatim from the pre 2011 constitution.
The MB are simply two faced, they were in cahoots with the SCAF when they felt they were going to gain power, and they supported the SCAF in the Maspero and Mohammed Mahmoud events (which they now try to commemorate unsuccessfully) but when the tables are turned and there's a de facto military ruler as there was then they are chanting the complete opposite and openly supporting rebellion and terrorism.
You still don't understand and you probably never will.
Democracy is much more than an election. The goals of the 25th of Jan revolution (which the MB joined late after refusing to pledge their allegiance toppling the regime in a cross party meeting with Kifaya) were and remain incredibly simple, bread (meaning life), freedom, and, social justice. It was agreed upon that the means by which this would be achieved is the foundation of a liberal democratic system in Egypt, a system in which representatives are chosen for office who then have a duty to provide the aforementioned without infringing upon the civil liberties and without acting beyond their mandate or breaking the separation of powers.
The Muslim Brotherhood as the National Democratic Party and the current regime are committed to democratic elections, however, they are not committed to anything else. In reality, all they really mean (these parties) by democratic is that we are legitimate no matter what we do and you have no choice but to see out our term. In that sense the Muslim Brotherhood and the new regime are different sides of the same coin, both had or have an interest in silencing dissent, both are willing to act beyond their mandates, both are willing (and have) to breach the separation of powers and their constitutional powers if they deem it necessary.
This isn't really about ideology, in reality the the MB and current regime have not differed massively on religious issues as proved by the constitutions put up for referendum, both have the same exact clauses on the role of religion in the state and society and both are pretty much take verbatim from the pre 2011 constitution.
The MB are simply two faced, they were in cahoots with the SCAF when they felt they were going to gain power, and they supported the SCAF in the Maspero and Mohammed Mahmoud events (which they now try to commemorate unsuccessfully) but when the tables are turned and there's a de facto military ruler as there was then they are chanting the complete opposite and openly supporting rebellion and terrorism.