The british news paper has wrote a provocative editorial called “Egypt : Tug of War“. A piece that tries to be unbiased that it’s missing the whole point of what’s going on for weeks now.
They start of saying what the whole crisis is “NOT” about, they mentioned it’s not about the decree, nor the constitution, but it’s about Morsy him self. Stating that the “Opposition” is trying to claim power. hmm, seriously? that same opposition that gave its blessing to Morsy in the second round of elections and most of them voted for him?
The “prestigious” Guardian talks about two side, opposition and power, as figures! which is an idiotic domain since the opposition doesn’t really matter or even has a significant role in this crisis. People took down the street and Tahrir square again, even before any of the “opposition” declare it’s stands. El Baradie met with Morsy few weeks before he announced his “absolute power” decree. I’m sure El Baradie mentioned his aim for the chair!
it’s outrageous how the Guardian analyze the situation, mentioning that “Muslim Brotherhood‘s Freedome and Justice party sanctioned a violent assault on a peaceful encampment of ‘opposition supporters’ outside the presidential palace,” then saying “Islamists were its principle victims.” So FJP assaulted but Islamists were the victims! How the use of two different words, to portray two different category of people! No they are not, FJP assaulted peaceful protesters (Not opposition supporters! You wont see El Baradie’s poster in the crowd for example), so how in the hell would an attacker become a victim? ridiculous!
The “professional” Guardian says five of the six people killed in Cairo were members of the Brotherhood. Even though all the reports on the ground shows that’s not true, yet they got their info from the Muslim Brotherhood it self, and neglected all the other media outlets. Very professional. So much of being unbiased.
“Morsi undoubtedly made grave mistakes” You could have never described it better. That’s exactly why El Baradie said (and you mentioned earlier in your Editorial) “Morsi had lost his legitimacy”. If you read the situation this way, then it makes sense, but how your editorial team, manipulated the timeline of events putting the reply before the mistakes, makes the “opposition” sound greedy as you try to portray it.
One more thing, the ‘opposition figures’ do not represent the ground movements, they may say some of what’s been chanted, but they do not have a significant influence on the ground, it’s the other way around. You should know better.
The “Crisis” was about the decree, only the decree, how the MB slipped the constitution, made a crisis inside a crisis and how the MB attacked and killed peaceful protesters, that was the third strike, and it’s time for them to go.
I won’t comment on the last sentence, cause I believe it was written by an idiot.
- Egypt: tug of war | Editorial (guardian.co.uk)