“Most people gaze neither into the past nor the future; they explore neither truth nor lies. They gaze at the television.” - Radiohead

It never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant and narrow-minded the western media continues to be. CNN prides itself on being the most trusted name in news around the world, and this couldn't be farther from the truth. Watching their coverage of the June 30^th Tamarod movement has led me to believe that they suffer from both short and long-term memory loss... Actually, it seems like they have no memory at all. What scares me the most is that it seems as though they would like to see Egypt slip into a civil war; it would make for great television and boost their ratings. However, the majority of Egyptians will work tirelessly to avoid this, as nobody wants to live in a war zone.

So let's talk facts and dismiss myths. Western media is very confused as to whether or not the People's Coup should be seen as a positive or a negative uprising. The answer to that depends on your definition of a democratic state, and what you think it means to be actively involved in the democratic process. I have long believed that if the majority doesn't agree with what its government is doing then they should be able to replace their leaders at any time. Why must we wait for elections? Shouldn't we stop power hungry leaders before the damage is done? The Egyptian people obviously think so. If the media were to look back to the 2012 elections, they would recall (had they any form of memory) that many Egyptians didn't even want to cast their ballots, and voter apathy was high. This is largely due to the fact that after we succeeded in ousting Mubarak, the options in the run-off were not representative of the direction we wanted to see our country go in. Rather, we were stuck between a rock and a hard place, forced to choose a side with those we were fighting against: the military or the Muslim Brotherhood.

During Mubarak's reign, the only opposition that was allowed to exist conceptually, was the Muslim Brotherhood. Though the party was officially banned, having the fear of them around was a clever tactical move; the reasoning being to scare American and the West into unconditionally supporting Mubarak. Better a dictator than having a Hamas-like organisation in power. Remember Hamas? They were legitimately elected in Palestine, but their victory was not accepted by Israel and thus not accepted by America. It seems ridiculous to me that now they seem to be all about keeping the Brotherhood in power, in the name of 'legitimacy'.

At the time of our first democratic elections, the military was running the country after Mubarak's removal (although some would argue they were in charge during Mubarak's rule too). So when the people were given the choice, they understandably chose to give the military the finger, electing the Brotherhood’s Morsi instead. This was a decision not made lightly as many Egyptians knew that neither should really have power. That is why many chose not to vote at all because ultimately, choosing between the two would invalidate the whole purpose of having the revolution. Regardless of the dissatisfaction with the system, the election took place anyway because people were tired of living in an unstable environment without representation. The consensus seemed to be that the Brotherhood would be given a chance...and if they wouldn't listen to the variety of voices that got them in, then we would take to the streets in a year and force him out.