Recep Tayyip Erdogan vs. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

[TDAS04]

?

[Kingpoleon]

el-Sisi hasn't so drastically developed dictatorial powers.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Erdogan

[Mr. Smith]

Erdogan

[Zioneer]

el-Sisi hasn't so drastically developed dictatorial powers.

....el-Sisi was elected by 97%.

[GGover]

Erdogan

[Kingpoleon]

el-Sisi hasn't so drastically developed dictatorial powers.

....el-Sisi was elected by 97%.

It's one thing to assume a dictatorship from a predecessor like his. It's a whole different thing to create a dictatorship like Erdogan is doing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Gotta go with Sisi.

[Cactus Jack]

I'll go with the one who inherited a dictatorship instead of creating one all for himself. On the balance, el-Sisi has done vastly less harm than Erdogan.

[President Johnson]

Both massive HPs, but Sisi by default. He's not imprisoning innocent German citizens.

[DavidB.]

Sisi (normal)

[thumb21]

Sisi.

As mentioned, Sisi inherited a dictatorship, Erdogan is creating one. Also, Egypt has mostly kept to itself under Sisi whereas Turkey is very aggressive. Invading Northern Syria, constant provocations against Kurds, using Syrian rebel groups as proxies, they are still occupying Northern Cyprus and Turkey keeps interfering in European politics such as by telling Turks in Germany who to vote for.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Am I taking crazy pills? Erdogan inherited a disastrous and authoritarian quasi-democratic state, had a chance to reform it, fluffed it and now is just as bad as the worst Turkish leaders.

Sisi meanwhile capitalised on a disastrously incompetent quasi-democratic government established after the Arab Spring in order to form a nightmarish authoritarian state far worse than it was under Mubarak/Sadat/Nasser. He is far worse than Erdogan at present, although granted Erdogan has probably not reached the depths of his depravity yet.

They are pretty similar in their methods though - mainly  capitalising on their dumb as a sack of bricks political opponents and using ethnic minorities as shields. They also use secularism and pious Islamism as shields, but such facades are irrelevant.

[Lechasseur]

Sisi

[TDAS04]

I voted for the secular evil.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is nothing more disgusting than sanctimonious westerners defending Sisi, a brutal and bloodstained dictator allied with the Sauds with a wholly regressive agenda aimed at destroying all liberal, democratic and working-class based movements in Egypt with extreme force. Anybody would think the west was being hypocritical in pretending to care about democracy and human rights or whatever.

[seb_pard]

There is nothing more disgusting than sanctimonious westerners defending Sisi, a brutal and bloodstained dictator allied with the Sauds with a wholly regressive agenda aimed at destroying all liberal, democratic and working-class based movements in Egypt with extreme force. Anybody would think the west was being hypocritical in pretending to care about democracy and human rights or whatever.

I cannot agree more with you, but this forum is obsessed with the notion that being "secular" is inherently good and if something is islamic it should be bad. Don't get me wrong, I obviously support secularism (and a progressive society) and don't like islamism, but for example, Erdogan is terrible not because he is conservative, but because he is becoming a dictator (although I think Turkey has never been never a full developed democracy), but he is no near the levels of Sisi, who show high levels of dehumanization.

At the end, the problem with Erdogan is that expectations about him were high and but he finally preferred the way that turkish leaders did (with the difference he is no kemalist).

[TDAS04]

Both are evil, obviously.

[Green Line]

Sisi.  A much better American ally.

[Fight for Trump]

Sisi is no angel, but Erdogan is a monster and a threat to the West.

[SATW]

Sisi is no angel, but Erdogan is a monster and a threat to the West.