Hacker News Reader

Comment by yyyk | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, the Muslim Brotherhood was such a swell brand, just tell the Copts that. Transnational Islamism doesn't make any trouble either. And to be frank, the US didn't want communism to take over after apartheid. One Mugabe was bad enough, and an even more badly mismanaged SA would be a disaster. On all issues you mention, the choices were often unpleasant, but always had their reasons.

View on HN

So what you're saying is the West wanted (and funded and armed) tough governments that kept a lid on things as opposed to "modern governments built around such ideals as individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances, multiple political parties, free speech, independent court systems, a secular state".

People can be on your side or not, but at least you are rooted in the real world and actual history.

Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood into power. There's nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood pertaining to "modern governments built around such ideals as individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances, multiple political parties, free speech, independent court systems, a secular state".

Better to deal with a secular dictator than an elected religious extremist. Elected Islamists always crap on democracy once they're elected.

> There's nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood pertaining to "modern governments built around such ideals as individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances, multiple political parties..."...Better to deal with a secular dictator

The Muslim Brotherhood has no appreciation for multiple political parties in Egypt. Nor do you, as you are openly supportive of a dictatorship.

You and yyyk both support my point - the West does not support for Egypt what the original poster called "modern governments built around such ideals as individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances, multiple political parties, free speech, independent court systems, a secular state".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com