The idiot Hassan Nafaa writes this long article enumerating the ways in which it was a sad day twenty-nine years ago last month when Sadat landed in Jerusalem. He recounts how he was sick with fever that night and how he sadly watched the historic event from bed – I believe you, Hassan!...The fever must have permanently gone to your head! ...
I won't get into a hypothetical argument of niyyaat (intentions) which are the kind of semantics he bases his whole article on, but instead I will only ask a few questions:
Did Sadat or didn't he invite the Palestinians and all the Arab Parties to the first Arab-Israeli meeting of peace talks in the Mena House? He did.
Did he or didn't he put the Palestinian flag and seat next to the Israeli delegation at that first meeting-table in Cairo? He did.
And look really who were on this alternate side that Nafaa bases his hypothetical defense on. This is really pathetic:
يعنى كنّا بئينا فين لو السادات مشى ورا جوز البهايم دول لامؤاخذة؟
Isn't this very picture the embodiment of the alternative choice that we had, according to dear uber-intellectual comrade Nafaa? These two gorillas kept sacrificing their peoples' lives for their personal glories. They each had their way till the very end of their rules…what came out of it, what have they achieved for their people, and more importantly for the Palestinian cause?
Sadat on the other hand chose to risk and ultimately did pay with his own life to put an end to the bloodshed of his people and to the cycle of war in the Middle East.
Was it all for show? Was it all just drama on his part?
He backed up his "gamble" with his own life, and with the material peace and liberation he achieved...What more proof from him do you need?
And despite all this it was Sadat who, despite the constant bullying and death threats of these brave Arab leaders, negotiated for the cornerstone of Middle East peace which can be found in this document of the Camp David treaties, and which happens to be the basis of everything that everyone involved in the Middle East peace process came to accept.
(N.B. There is this story I read a few weeks ago about unchecked illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank...Settlement building in the occupied territories was ruled illegal by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1979; why do you think this happened in 1979 in particular and not anytime before that?)
Then the writer faults Sadat for saying that America held 99% of the cards in the Middle East. Hello? Maybe the fever still didn't leave your head? The Soviet Union disappeared and Sadat saw it coming…instead of giving him credit you still fault him for that?
Seriously, it's in times like these that I look on the big bad government as my protector against an army of retarded "intellectuals".
The conspiracy theorist in me at this moment then asks: are these retarded intellectuals planted there by the government on purpose, or are they just a natural occurrence of nature? Unfortunately, unfortunately, they appear to be au naturale.
* There comes a time (many times!) when I say to myself khalas let these people be and I've covered this issue already, then the retards running Kifaya come up with crap like this, adamant to revoke the peace treaty...it's all just getting too pathetic...
I won't get into a hypothetical argument of niyyaat (intentions) which are the kind of semantics he bases his whole article on, but instead I will only ask a few questions:
Did Sadat or didn't he invite the Palestinians and all the Arab Parties to the first Arab-Israeli meeting of peace talks in the Mena House? He did.
Did he or didn't he put the Palestinian flag and seat next to the Israeli delegation at that first meeting-table in Cairo? He did.
And look really who were on this alternate side that Nafaa bases his hypothetical defense on. This is really pathetic:
يعنى كنّا بئينا فين لو السادات مشى ورا جوز البهايم دول لامؤاخذة؟
Isn't this very picture the embodiment of the alternative choice that we had, according to dear uber-intellectual comrade Nafaa? These two gorillas kept sacrificing their peoples' lives for their personal glories. They each had their way till the very end of their rules…what came out of it, what have they achieved for their people, and more importantly for the Palestinian cause?
Sadat on the other hand chose to risk and ultimately did pay with his own life to put an end to the bloodshed of his people and to the cycle of war in the Middle East.
Was it all for show? Was it all just drama on his part?
He backed up his "gamble" with his own life, and with the material peace and liberation he achieved...What more proof from him do you need?
And despite all this it was Sadat who, despite the constant bullying and death threats of these brave Arab leaders, negotiated for the cornerstone of Middle East peace which can be found in this document of the Camp David treaties, and which happens to be the basis of everything that everyone involved in the Middle East peace process came to accept.
(N.B. There is this story I read a few weeks ago about unchecked illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank...Settlement building in the occupied territories was ruled illegal by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1979; why do you think this happened in 1979 in particular and not anytime before that?)
Then the writer faults Sadat for saying that America held 99% of the cards in the Middle East. Hello? Maybe the fever still didn't leave your head? The Soviet Union disappeared and Sadat saw it coming…instead of giving him credit you still fault him for that?
Seriously, it's in times like these that I look on the big bad government as my protector against an army of retarded "intellectuals".
The conspiracy theorist in me at this moment then asks: are these retarded intellectuals planted there by the government on purpose, or are they just a natural occurrence of nature? Unfortunately, unfortunately, they appear to be au naturale.
* There comes a time (many times!) when I say to myself khalas let these people be and I've covered this issue already, then the retards running Kifaya come up with crap like this, adamant to revoke the peace treaty...it's all just getting too pathetic...
40 comments:
If he followed goze el bahayem dole (fe3lan goze bahayem), we would be planning for the next round of fighting to capture El Zamalek, so that we can start negotiations regarding the return of the east bank of the nile, while giving signals that Sinai could be left to Israel as a compromise.
Mohamed,you managed to comment "the goz el bahayem" part before me, well placed picture by the way senefru. Kefaya seemed promising (on the internet) when i first heard about it. But i soon found out it was infiltrated by nasserites and ekhwangeya that seem to care more about the "important stuff", way to go Kefaya.. won't get bigger than being an internet site in illiteracy ridden Egypt. Sorry to say nobody cares for the egyptians in Egypt.
Thanks guys, at least we agree and that is good enough in itself.
I don't know about the whole treaty issue.In light of recent events and Israel's actions, i'm not surprized that Egyptians are fed up with Israel and i guess kefaya are playing that card to drum up support for themselves too.
They are getting a bit idiotic and desperate and out of touch, but then again they're atleast causing a fuss.
We'll have to disagree on Sadat, who i think is the worst thing that ever happened to Egypt, but you've made a good point about him deserving some credit for some of the decisions he made.
lol@goz bahayem
Yeah Hany, Seneferu's choice for the picture is quiet brilliant (it's got the I missed you so much Saddam baby look on 3arafat's face and the matenshaf shwaya yalla badal mageblak 3adey ya'3tasebak look on saddam's face), also Seneferu's remark about how we come to love our big bad government when we compare it to those people is so true.
Better still is something I saw on the news like 10 years ago during a 3arafat trip to China, when he entered a room full of chinese officials that he never met before and will never meet again and couldn't tell them apart for that matter nor knew the name of a single one of them, yet every single one of them got the 3arafat special including the where did I waste my life before I met you today honey smile, and the deep long borderline sexual harrasment hug, and finally and most important (3arafat's specialty actually) the stamping on both cheeks, with extra reyala for his chinese friends, with 2 of his trademark kisses, he did it so well that I really believed that he was genuinly infatuated with those chinese dudes, until my dad said "ahe el monafek ebn e kalb dah, howa 3omro shafhom abl keda 3ashan yo2a3 fe '3armhom beshakl da?"
Shahrazad, Sadat is the worst thing that ever happened to Egypt? What about el mamaleek, and the turks and 3abdelnasser, be fair, we all owe him a big debt of gratitude, no matter what mistakes he made and he made some big ones, he isn't even close to being the worst.
LOL, I didn't know my goz el bahayem comment would be so popular...I saw the picture one day while randomly surfing the net and thought "this picture will come into use some day"...:)
I can't stop laughing at the in depth anlysis of Arafat's sexual advances on those he met. That's a post right there.
Ok, here's the part i never got. People who hate nasser, mamaleek etc but love love love Sadat! I don't like Nasser(not many people i like i think) but i have to admit, grudgingly, that he did Egypt a lot of good. This doesn't forgive the fact that he was a dictator. Sadat was an even bigger dictator, he screwed the country, was corrupt, hated by the majority of egyptians at the time, signed a peace treaty(i am not against it by any means) against the will of the Egyptian public, invented the my way or the high way motto, torture really took off in his day, and last but by no means least, sucked up to the muslim brotherhood and promised them the world so they can let him be. I'm not saying they should've been left to rot in jail but he played the mb card before anyone else. So why does someone who hates Nasser love Sadat, i don't get it.
What??:) la you are totally off on this one, Shahrazad. How was he a bigger dictator than Nasser, and "torture really took off in his day??"...Where did you get this? We can disagree on opinions but factually this is very incorrect.
Plus the whole "Nasser did Egypt a lot of good"...ma 3aleina:)...
And the peace treaty definitely was not unpopular or against the will of the Egyptian public that fought six wars in 25 years...
Seneferu,
I'm definately not a fan of Nasser for the same reasons that i'm not a fan of Sadat. They were both dictators, no?:)
Sadat imprisoned and tortured activists and intellectuals from different ideologies and soon after that he was murdered. In fact the sitiuation in Egypt now can actually be compared to Sadat's time with regards to imprisoning and shutting up everyone who has a different or opposing opinion.
I cannot convince you that the treaty went against public opinion just like i can't convince a nasserist that Nasser wasn't a saint, but i would've thought it was very known that at the time he was opposed by the public or atleast, and i hate to use this word, the majority. I am not disagreeing with you that in the end and with hindsight it was a good call, so for that i think he deserves credit.
What was the economy like in his day, what about corruption? What about the same things you find wrong with Nasser's era? see, in my opinion they're both guilty ofthe same thing, but Sadat's definately guilty of more(just my opinion).
I think we'll have to disagree on this one but your posts on Sadat are always interesting and introduce me to new facts:)
Sadat never tortured anyone, the islamist leaders who bore the brunt of torture over the years say this themselves, and now say zalamouh...and the only arrests he carried out were in the month before his assassination, and I explain their circumstances in that post.
About the peace treaty no definitely it was not unpopular among the vast majority of the people who suffered these wars. The uber-intellectuals are another story. They are 'special' people, who are always a source of fun to write about in my posts:)...
In egypt, intellectual is a code name for sheoo3y, even if you only have el ebteda2ya like Sa3d edeen wahba for example.
Seneferu, are you serious?:)
Sadat was a good president???!!
The Islamists gave him and Nasser before him full support till he turned his back on the promises he made to them and broke allegiance. However, he played a major part in the mb gaining strength and for that they would be thankful i suppose! Zalamoh?! Ya haram..:)
About the uber "intellectuals", i'm not saying they're right either but i can't possibly agree that Sadat or Nasser or Mubarak were good presidents.That's like hating Nasser but loving Mubarak!:)
As for the treaty, ok we agree that it was the right thing to do. Time has proved that if nothing else. Now i wasn't alive at the time but i've always heard, maybe from ubers, that it was opposed. Either way, i'm not a pan arabist, nasserist, leftist(my least favourite people) or a whateverist but that doesn't mean i think Sadat was good now.
Didn't sectarian tension flourish in his era? And what about the huge gap between rich and poor that's now become the norm in Egypt? Opression? MB?
Sounds exactly like other dictators that people and ubers defend(why?!?!) endlessly. :)
I see, thanks for the clarification on the sheoo3ys
Shahrazad, Sadat was trying to reverse Nasser's rape of Egypt, and knowing the only way to do that was to try to make everything exactly as it was (refer to Seneferu's previous post quoting a7mad lotfy el sayed just to get a hint of how a true intellectual used to be in twenties and thirties) before 1952, he had to upset all the fala7een and the poor people who were bribed by 3abdel Nasser's looting of the rich people's money and land, so the tide was really against him, if he was as cruel as you said he could have dealt with them with an iron hand to shut them up, maybe we would've been better of now.
Regarding the e'7wan and the sectarian tensions, I don't disagree with you on that, I think this was his ultimate sin, although I don't think he intended it to go out of hand as it did.
If he was that corrupt, could you tell me who's more rich, his kids, or nasser's kids.
I could talk rubbish and guess that he robbed egypt blind but i can't prove it. I'm not comparing him to Nasser, both were dictators in my opinion but if i did compare them Nasser would win hands down if we look at history and facts and the life of the average egyptian and education being free for alletc.
I don't get the fala7een argument?
Shahrazad, don't take my word for it since I am obviously biased on the issue. And I don't really agree with what Mohamed said about the rich and the poor either as far as Sadat is concerned...but let's leave the matter of opinions open. As far as facts are concerned though, you have a preconceived notion that Sadat a) tortured people, and b) was an even bigger dictator than Nasser, which are both completely false. I would be a complete bastard to defend him if that were the case; I do so because the opposite is true. You'll have to pick up a few books on Sadat to clear up these points for yourself.
As far as the economy is concerned, here is how I see it. Sadat took power from his predecessor with the economy bankrupt and with the country occupied. Add to that another war that had to be fought in 73, making us even more bankrupt. He had to open up the economy. The results that unravel from this step (the gap between the rich and the poor, etc.) are the same that happened/happen in any country that makes this shift in its economy. Add to these economic woes not only the absence of an aid plan, but a complete economic boycott of Egypt from the Arab world (led by the way, by the two bahayem in the picture above).
You can be against the market economy as a principle, which I will respect as an opinion and be interested in hearing more about it in theory and practice, but you can't be for a capitalist economy and blame the person who took the hard decision to make the switch.
And as far as the people are concerned, look at these pictures for yourself; do they look like a people hungry for another war?
Senefru,
By the way how do u pronounce "uber-intellectuals"? Don't u more or less mean what constitutes the part in egyptian politics played by communists and nasserites?
Mohamed, better watch ur mouth. It's not the first time u reiterate your father's comments about arab rulers. People will start thinking u're a son of a foul mouthed mekaniky with a shrewd political sense.
I think Sadat had his big mistakes and he was a dictator, but he honestly tried to build up Egypt after the Nasser era. And the peace treaty was welcomed by the egyptians, but the luxury of renouncing it when it's already there and the convenience of calling Sadat a traitor for signing it is a chance not to be missed by the hypocrite uber-intellectuals.
No it's just a wider term that I use for fun in this blog. (We don't support witch-hunts in this blog.) It originated in D. North African territory and took on a life of its own from there. Read the link above for more details.
Screw you Hany :), and to borrow a previous Seneferu line "wemalhom el mekanikia ya3ny?" :).
Yeah, he was a dictator because he had too, until something like madba7et el mamaleek finishes off the last remaining e'7wan member, each future ruler of egypt will have to be a dictator, unless this future leader is an e'7wan himself, in this case of course say goodbye to egypt for the next 500 years.
Seneferu, show shahrazad by putting in conttext how 3abdel nasser screwed egypt by giving a comparison between every aspect of egyptian life (cultural, political, educational, agricultural etc) before this son of a bitch and after him.
I feel like i'm on some kind of alternate universe where everyone admits that Sadat was a dictator but defend him anyway!!!?! That is except Seneferu, so atleast i get why you're defending him.:)
Mohamed, he didn't "have to" be a dictator, you make him sound like some sort of victim! And as for the e7'wan thing, well he supported them and it's thanks to him they're still around today. I have no idea why you want to compare him to Nasser who's just as bad!Nasserists and "uber intellectuals" use the same he had to argument to justify Nasser's actions and defend him, no?
Hany, ok so the treaty was welcomed, will agree though i keep hearing different opinions on that one. But seriously you think he was a dictator yet are saying it was ok and he tried?!?! I almost feel ssorry for him. Not.
Seneferu, at least you're disagreeing on him being a dictator, so it makes sense that you think he was a good president.I am completely for a capitalist economy and it would have been great for Egypt, but it didn't quite happen this way, which i know you'll disagree with. I will say one thing, Mubarak could also make the same point and say it's the way the cookie or, economy rather, crumbled. he could also say that the poverty and all the other symptoms of his ruining the egyptian economy is down to Capitalism and the free market. I do acknowledge he had a hell of a task taking over from Nasser, but he ended up being exactly the same, so we'll have to disagree on that one till i read a few books on him and whoever else i thought was bad for Egypt.
The photos are nice and show a side usually ignored by the media, again i always hear conflicting opinions on how the treaty was met by the public but hey i am greatful it exists.
Shahrazad,
Ramsees el tany was a dictator, Sala7 el deen was a dictator, ma7amad 3aly and el '7edawy esma3eel and isma3eel sed2y basha were dictators, yet I don't think you can find many bad things to say about them. In egypt,democracy means el e'7wan and that's not just government propaganda, so do you want to have this kind of democracy?
Oh my god, so if i'm against someone because they're dictators it must mean i want the e7'wan instead??
kind of the same argument ubers make to support Nasser, they say but atleast he kept a tight lid on them and if you criticize him you must be pro them.:)
Funny how democracy in Egypt isn't possible, anywhere in the world yes but not Egypt. Maybe it has less to do with the dictatorial leaders and more to do with the mindset of the people. I can now see that liberals have no chance in hell in Egypt.
And really look at Sadat's history with the e7'wan please.
"Democracy means el e7'wan". That one leaves me speechless!
Exactly, it's all about the mindset of the people, half of which are retards, and the other half wouldn't even think about voting unless there's a free meal or something like that. As bad as our government is, it's way better than the people it's governing.
I disagree with what is being said, but I am going to sit this one out. Khalas te3ebt.
Nice discussion but I wanted to say why we have to compare between this and that!…I like the European proverb that says: the devil shits on a pile. The real problem lies deep within our culture and habits that kept us closed for so long.
How can we expect a democratic Egypt to emerge from the people who mostly practice nothing but corrupting and oppressing each other!....Nasser, Sadat and the current president are the products of ailing and sluggish system that brings always these type useless jackasses. People need someone to trigger a sense of dignity in them and show them they are better off with democracy.
Sadat, as most of us agree, did a good job for making a peace with Israel. Simply, because there was no future for these wars. In other words the alternative was disaster! Sadat did also bad things (especially in his final days), but I think mainly because he knew no one would ever dare to oppose him. Similarly for Nasser, and the current administration.
For any kind of new system be it democracy, autocracy or the "wonderful MB", it will have to resonate with the mindset of the mainstream Egyptians. Sadly, with the current corrupt system, people see no real substitute but the MB. That could be the end of the beginning or beginning of new miserable society! (God forbid)
Shahrazad, either you're too idealistic or you haven't lived in Egypt long enough. I'm not trying to insult you in any way.
Ayyam, I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think that Sadat was a jackass. Actually he's the only real politician of the three inspite of all his disasterous mistakes. Nice forum here by the way.
Hi Senefru,
I read with interest all the comments. Coming from a person who was lucky to live in Egypt during Sadat time, I honestly say that Sadat was well-liked by most Egytians and he deserves credit for his bravery in getting peace to Egypt while other leaders in the region were talking and still talk about peace.
Yes, Sadat was not fast on democracy, however, except for the end, nobody went to prison for his opinions as Nasser did to his opponents for a period of more than 15 years. Furthermore, who was responsible for the 1967 defeat?
Egyptian in Germany
Ayyam, let's hope that things don't get worse.
Hany, thanks about the forum.
Egyptian in Germany,thanks for your feedback and do come back.
I honestly don't think that being against corrupt dictators like Sadat is idealistic. When you judge a president you have to look at facts and politics and how people were treated by him. I actually haven't lived in Egypt that long but to call mamaleek and Sadat dictators, which most people here agree on, i don't need to have lived there at all. What is idealistic is acknowledging that Sadat was a dictator but defending him or justifying his actions.:)
As for the popularity thing, well it's not a popularity contest. Nasser was very popular, look at how many people turned up to stop him from resigning, look at how many people cheered him wherever he went, look at the entire population turning up to his funeral, so by your own standards he must've been great, no?I bet there are even photos of Mubarak being cheered by crowds somewhere. And Hitler.
There's no such thing as less corrupt, though in my humble opinion Sadat was more corrupt than any other president before him. There's only corrupt, so if he was corrupt and people defend him or say he had to in order to justify his "corrupt" actions then what's the point of criticizing those who defend Nasser and long for his "glory days".
As for the defeat in 67, well i'm not defending Nasser here, he lost Egypt that one, no doubt. Sadat "won" Egypt the 73 war and we've been living on that "victory" for far too long. :)The treaty's never been an issue for me because it's there and that's that. I am happy that it's there and that Egypt's not at war, I just can't sing Sadat's praises and call him what i believe he was not. A good president.
Ok i'm shutting up now!:)
Shahrazad, my only problem here is that you insist on making judgements without having read anything about him. You are confusing him for Nasser; he was the torture man, and the one who kept people imprisoned until the day he died. Sadat suspended all this when he came to power. You can read up on him if you care to give the time and then you can call him whatever you want. Before you do this there is nothing really to argue about.
Without having read anything about him?!?! A tad presumptuous to say the least.
Let's agree to disagree on this one, you think he was great and i think he was terrible, i won't tell you to go and read about him and you are free to interpret history how you wish, this is why we're coming to different conclusions. Honestly, as with Nasser and every other president, it all depends on your perspective. However some historical facts i would've thought were just that, but hey let's leave it at that especially that he's dead and our completely different opinions of him are of no consequence.
Ya Shahrazad,
I naturally presumed this when you said "torture really took off in his day" and he "was an even bigger dictator" than Nasser, among many other things you said which are factually incorrect but I will not handle here or consider for their openness to personal interpretation. Forgive me for my outlandish presumption:)
This is not a disagreement over opinions, Shahrazad.
Shahrazad, having millions of retards protesting his resignation or turning on to bid him farewell on his trip to hell, doesn't say anything about him more than it says about those idiots who traded their country's best interests to worship an incompetent tyrant, it only tells you that we deserved him and that we even deserve worse, seriously, any self respecting people after the 67 defeat would've grabbed him by the legs hung him upside down in medan el ta7reer then set him and 3abdel 7akeem 3amer on fire, and that's a very small price for gambling with the lives of thousands of young men, in an unneccessary and unprepared for war, just to score points with Syria, and emerge as el wad el sheda.
Here goes for the last time, I'm not defending Nasser here i was just pointing out that if we're talking pictures then there are pictures that can be found of crowds cheering those we deem to be dictators. So that proves nothing. Now why defend someone who you admit was a dictator?
Seneferu, you can't say that anyone who thinks sadat was a dictator hasn't got a clue. That's what Nasserists say when you point out *facts* about Nasser and his history. Tell me he didn't do any of the things you hate Nasser for and i'll understand where you're coming from. But you can't possibly agree that he did them and attempt to justify it and say that this only happened at the end of his presidency etc etc.
Mohamed, i agree that it says a lot about egyptians, at least the ones that were around then, but i also think that this can be applied to Sadat, i mean why be selective. If you believe someone was a terrible president and did all the things you criticize Nasser for then what's the point of defending him?!? Kind of like turning up to Nasser's funeral, no?
lol@ el wad elsheda
And guys, give me a break, i'm one against how many here?
ya Shahrazad, hattala3eeni min hedoumi wallahi. Sadat never ever EVER tortured anyone. Not even his most bitterest of opponents accused him of this. 7aram 3aleiki ya binti. Read please.
La' matetla3sh, :)
Listen bas, Doesn't look like we'll agree on this one but i cannot go against facts and say Sadat was a great politician and president. Just like i can't say those things about Nasser or Mubarak. I see that you think he was good enough and did the country good etc but i'm not comparing him to anyone. To me he was what he was, he made some good decisions and maybe they all did but it doesn't change the fact that he was a dictator. You can't tell me he's perfect, surely.
Ba3dain mosh haram 'alaya ana, i wasn't the dictator who effed up Egypt, that's Sadat. Look at the state of it in his day and the lasting effects. Just like we point out Nasser's faults, why deny that Sadat ruined Egypt, and no before you say it, i'm not blaming the free market concept here, i'm blaming yet another corrupt president, this time Sadat.
Seriously, i don't mean to offend you here, though i'm a bit baffled that such fundamentally wrong things in his era are being ignored, you obviously believe he did the best given the circumstances. So we'll disagree.
Khala3aaas, mish hatla3 el marraadi...:-)
Raaight, Shahrazad. And you are free to think that Mother Theresa was the devil and Gandhi played basketball with the Pope. Those totally fall within your subscribed boundaries of facts and opinion.
Shahrazad,
Sadat led Egypt into one of it's most brilliantly executed and planned wars to gain us back our pride (no slogans intended), and in the end he returned the entire Sinai and ended the cycle of wars we've been involved in for 25 years paying with Egyptian blood while seneferu's goze el bahayem were just watching, which brings us back to Seneferu's question regarding following goze el bahayem and their god father nasser, and for this I'm willing to forgive Sadat for any of his other mistakes and I'll be for ever owing him a huge debt of gratitude. As for Nasser, he deserves a huge statue, in Israel.
Seneferu,
ana hashed sha'ry w ab'a zay bent okhtak keda!!!!!:)
Comparing Sadat to mother theresa and ghandi! NO COMMENT
Mohamed, get over Nasser already, when someone brings up *facts*about Sadat you can't come back with facts about Nasser. Facts we agree on btw.
I am now starting to see that just like there are Nasserists there are also Sadatists. They only differ on the name of their idol.
Ya shahrazad, ay 7ad yetkallem 3an el facts gheirik enti law sama7ti!
For the millionth time, you are free to say whatever you want about the man and I will not at all object, as long as it is remotely informed. The man has been accused of being many things; a traitor, a spy, an actor, a complete buffoon...but a torturer? You proudly made that up yourself. You must be smoking some very strong material.
With your statement that "torture really took off in his day" and he "was even a bigger dictator than Nasser" I easily and confidently deduced that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. That is all.
I hope you had a happy eid:)
Post a Comment