I listened to the press conference for Freedom and Change today about Al-Burhan’s speech, and I think that the speakers did not provide convincing reasons, at least for me, for rejecting Al-Burhan’s speech in its entirety.
The main reason for this is that they dealt with the statement as if it were a basic reference for the political process, to the extent that they, without feeling, repeated that the speech was ignorance of such and such and did not clarify such and such, and did not mention such and such, as if they were waiting for the proof to present them with everything at one time on a plate of gold. They missed that if the speech was complete and inclusive of all that freedom and change wanted and what the street wanted, it could not be adopted as a reference, but rather a viewpoint specific to the military that could be accepted or rejected.
Like it or not, the speech of the proof contains two important points. The first is the return of the soldiers to the barracks, which is a demand before the proof, not as a gift or as a gift, but stems from a sense of defeat and failure under the pressure of chants and throats and the daily work of the revolutionaries.
I expected freedom and change to bind the man from his tongue and take a step forward by searching for how and guarantees, whatever their form or anything else.
The second point is Al-Burhan’s talk about an independent government of competencies, and I understand and others understand that this coincides with the perceptions of freedom and change that I have expressed on more than one occasion, and it was necessary in principle to hold on to this and leave the quality, time and constitutional basis for negotiation, and it is certain that the words of the proof are not recited from the Qur’an. There is no firma that the military can impose on anyone.
I understand that Freedom and Change have acceptable reservations about the Rotana dialogue, and it must adhere to this until the negotiation approach and parties are reformed so that it accommodates the influential actors such as the armed struggle movements, partners that cannot be bypassed, no matter how sinful they are and the forces of the united revolution before April 11, and if this happened it could lead To ends, those ends, if the revolutionaries adhere to them, welcome, and if they do not abide by them, then the revolution is already going on and the confrontation is open.
The repeated talk from speakers about the tasks of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is one hundred percent correct, but I repeat that this is determined by the constitutional framework later, and the transitional constitutional framework itself, according to my understanding, is produced by the dialogue and not by a political and media discourse for proof.
The position of freedom and change completely contradicts its entry in the previous period in contact with the military under US-Saudi sponsorship to end the coup. partnership.
Many respected freedom and change, her courage in defending her position in negotiation, regardless of whether he was right or not, but it seems that that courage has faded now and I don’t know why..?
I was very surprised by the contradiction between Sadiq Al-Sadiq’s statement yesterday and his speech today at the press conference and the fallacy, so let him review them.
Greetings to all.