I’ve been reading alot of articles, and I mean alot, condemning the Government's’ action towards protestors. Amnesty International, especially, among others are throwing Sisi completely under the bus and saying that Egypt has to change and is falling back into old patterns, and should allow democracy as in all other countries in the West. Sisi made a speech, and they were disappointed. Sisi arrested protestors, and they were disappointed.
Are Human Rights’ Groups blind? What do you think the outcome will be if protesters are allowed to continue to complain? Where will the end of demonstrating be?
Look at the countries in the west. They have maybe maximum on occasion, a few demonstrations maybe once a year or twice a year at best. Why is that do you think? It’s because the West uses protesting as a last resort. They protest to make a statement, not to force change right there and then.
Egypt didn’t leave Tahrir until Mubarak was thrown out. We also didn’t leave until Morsi was thrown out as well. This isn’t a bad thing, because it shows how much the Egyptians were tired and fed up. They were making very strong statements, and most importantly, they were making these strong statements as a united nation.
The problem is, now anyone and their dog can demonstrate in Egypt as a means to force the Government, the School, the Work, to change their ways. This isn’t right because it is being used as a means to make change, instead of attempting to fix the problem first. What happened to good old talking? Remember arguments? They involve two sides! In order to see progression you need to have a dialogue with those who are upseting you.
Look at Morsi, and Mubarak. These are very two specific cases where there is no negotiating with terrorism. You can’t negotiate with someone who will not participate in the negotiation. Discussion requires a conversation between two opposing groups.