Nobel Prize winner Turkish author Orhan Pamuk has accused western countries for betraying their own values, regarding the latest developments in Egypt.

..
Pamuk said "He (al-Sisi) told the world that he would stage a military coup before the army took over. The whole world, especially  the west turned their heads and did not want to hear anything’’, adding that now, not only the US government and the EU but also western countries behave as they have no responsibility by saying the army was killing people.
Suggesting that the western effect might have diminished over Arab countries following the Arab Spring, Orhan Pamuk also said that the western world could simply have said a military coup could not be a tool for political conflict.
Pamuk also underlined that significant political bodies of the west could not call what happened in Egypt a “military coup” and western values that have ideals such as democracy, human rights and etc. either exist or they do not exist because political or economic calculations are gave in.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=haber&ArticleID=115436

====================

A Turkish intellect we will be proud of many generations!

"We are not controlling the land, but what´s happening in Sinai as a respond on the coup will stop in the second Abdel Fattah el-Sisy declares stepping back of the coup, correcting the situation and giving it back to its owners and the president is back to his authorities", said Mohamed el-Beltagy after el-Sisy´s support to the 30th of June revolution

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kja622cli2s&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKja622cli2s

I´m not accusing Ikhwan or whoever, as Beltagy also said that any violence is not a must to be from them but its a reaction to "what so called" coup.

so how come suspected militants... stop it thehandsom... just because you see any militant as a tyrant is not a must to make any civilian a democratic

Perhaps the way I wrote was not clear, sorry about the confusion. I didn´t mean to say that I encourage not to accept the result of any democratic elections. I do. And I believe - even if the winner is not for my taste - we should give them a chance to prove that they can do some good. 

If there hadn´t been a military coup, then perhaps the Brotherhood would have lost any early elections anyway, as then they would have been measured by their actions and decisions that were taken while they were in power - which decisions seemed to be unpopular. Now injustice comes to the first place, and hides the wrongdoings.

My opinion may not be favored here, but to me a military coup has nothing to do with democracy. It cannot be a tool, it cannot be a solution, and it cannot be an option in a democratic country. Would any government be legitimate that came to power by force? Furthermore, if a government come to power by force, would they accept any idea that differs from theirs? Would they negotiate? Would they accept any constitutional checks, or any counterweight?

Can you picture al-Sisi and Morsi sitting at the same table negotiating? I know the answer.

Regarding Turkey - well, I didn´t want to be that direct, but if you could please read the last paragraph in my previous post in this thread. I think more or less that would stand for Turkey too.

Update:

I´m just reading the news, and it looks like the majority of the people in Egypt seem to be adapted with state of emergency. That might be because this is what they get used to, and most likely the army has status, esteem and importance. Initially I thought that after the coup, Morsi would be widely supported, but I was wrong. It looks like the majority would prefer an army chief governing and see the army getting everything in order before new elections come. And this is fine, it is just not something I expected, but evidently it shows only the lack of my knowledge about the situation.

Just one question came to my mind: if the goal is to crack down the Brotherhood, and get them marginalised, will it not radicalise them even more?

Pamuk is right. It´s a shame that when it comes to western intervention (or the lack of it) many times western political and econonomic interests come first and democratic values only second.

Surely the US/EU preferred to deal with the army in Egypt rather than seeing an islamist power ruling, so by not saying the word "coup" they pretended as if it didn´t happen. Though they condemned the killings, nothing else have been said. It´s a disgrace and so disappointing. While the US/EU expect other countries to teach democratic values, strengthen democracy or work towards that, in the meantime they fail to do so.

You may have noticed that many Arab countries - while condemning the killings - were also happy to see the army taking over, and was nothing said about the coup. 

Meanwhile the Turkish PM was deeply disappointed and he was quite outspoken condemning the coup. He is right, fair enough. I´m wondering if the most important motives to him were justice and democracy? Or it might be ideological? Or  - I´m only guessing here, and ready to remove this part of my post if it doesn´t fit - he feels threatened by the western silence?

I notice that TRT is still calling the ruling Egyptian Army "darbeci", but is no longer referring to Mursi followers as "democrats". The latter is simply called Moslem Brothers symphatizers nowadays, which sounds more honest.