4 ms·

In reality, it was the Mubarak and Sisi regimes that have killed and tortured civilians in the thousands. There's a bit in the article about how Morsi issued a

In reality, it was the Mubarak and Sisi regimes that have killed and tortured civilians in the thousands. There's a bit in the article about how Morsi issued a presidential decree making his actions unaccountable to the judiciary. This is a judiciary stacked during the Mubarak era that has sentenced dead people and infants to death in these political cases. Sisi's justice minister said that only the elite should keep controling the Egyptian judiciary and in his words, "a cleaner's son" has no right to be a judge. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-a-cleaners-son-the-right-to-become-a-judge https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/18564-denying-... Activists and journalists should investigate and bring to light the misdeeds of everyone including Morsi and the MB, but it is incredulous at this point to believe that the real problem with Egypt is not the corrupt elite of the military, crony businesses and the state apparatus. It wasn't the Muslim brotherhood, the left, or the liberals who were firing on crowds from helicopters, killing thousands in the streets. It was the military.

acqq 11y ago
The Muslim Brotherhood, being the religious extremists whose declared purpose was establishing Sharia-ruled state (my previous post), would lead people of Egypt to even worse situation that they are now (compared to the MB wishes, Egypt was more secular even before the "revolution"). Therefore I don't agree with your view. The U.S. supported "democratic spring" only brought Muslim Brotherhood to the power (and the article author knew he was helping that, in his words, he was an "activist" and they a "political" power). Note that after the article author fought to bring the "democracy" once the Muslim Brotherhood came to the power he became disillusioned in them (his words "religious fanatics"). Against the possibility to have an Iran equivalent (or worse) in Egypt (his words: "made us fear our country would soon look like an Iranian theocracy"), the activity of the military seems to have been necessary. Note also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood "as of 2015" Muslim Brotherhood "is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain,[7][8] Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.[9][10][11][12]" But in 2011 the U.S. politicians and operatives called them "our guys" who "won" in Egypt. Recently, however: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2230/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/223... "32) On May 27, 2015, a group of 159 Muslim Brotherhood-associated scholars from 35 nations announced the publication of a document endorsing violence in Egypt in response to a “war against Islam's principles.”." "It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); and (2) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, should exercise the Secretary of State’s statutory authority by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization."
- baltcode 11y ago
  Regardless of your view of religion, political position, Sharia etc., are you saying that the actions of the Egyptian military on 14th August 2013, in which they fired on civilians killing somewhere around 1000 people were justified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2013_Rabaa_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2013_Rabaa_massacre)? The negative of course does not mean justifying any actions of the MB or other groups.
  - acqq 11y ago
    I've personally took part in the protests which involved clashes with the police, and believe me, police doesn't shoot at the crowd "just so" (tear gas, water cannons and beating are preferred). It's obvious that the protesters weren't just "peaceful unarmed civilians" but instead were also the attackers, which then explains why there were a lot of victims, especially among the policemen, from your Wikipedia link: "Initial reports by the Egyptian Health Ministry said 235 protesters, three journalists and 43 policemen died." Given that the police were certainly equipped with the vests, helms and shields, the number of victims among the police is telling. Think how it would look like in the U.S. if 43 policemen were killed on duty. In Waco, 76 "civilians" were killed, how many casualties were policemen, I think zero? "In addition, there have been a number of attacks on police stations around the country. Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim put the number of stations attacked at 21. Angry mobs reportedly also attacked dozens of Christian properties.[20]" It's a sad story, but much more multifaceted than you present it.
    - baltcode 11y ago
      1. Have you taken part in protests under authoritarian regimes where the judiciary is biased or unreliable, or where the police force is trying to control a problematic out-group? Or is your experience from first world countries like the US, Western Europe etc? Would you excuse the police in a similar way, say in Venezuela or Iran? How about in apartheid South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? Who gets to picks and choose? 2. In case of an attack on a police station or church, what should be the correct response: a) arrest and prosecute those involved by presenting evidence in an open court, or b) fire on protestors elsewhere against a coup because you think some have the same sympathies as those involved in the said attack? The reason why feel I dejected by your line of thinking is that it makes it really easy to justify violence. Daesh can use the same line of reasoning to target those it deems part of the Egyptian state, including the opposition liberals and Muslim Brotherhood for being part of the mass that is not violent towards the state. Trump rallies the epicenter of violence and racism, BLM should be justified on opening fire on them? Since BLM opposed to police actions and hence the rule of law, the Fraternal Orders of Police and the like should open fire on them.

acqq 11y ago

The Muslim Brotherhood, being the religious extremists whose declared purpose was establishing Sharia-ruled state (my previous post), would lead people of Egypt to even worse situation that they are now (compared to the MB wishes, Egypt was more secular even before the "revolution"). Therefore I don't agree with your view. The U.S. supported "democratic spring" only brought Muslim Brotherhood to the power (and the article author knew he was helping that, in his words, he was an "activist" and they a "political" power). Note that after the article author fought to bring the "democracy" once the Muslim Brotherhood came to the power he became disillusioned in them (his words "religious fanatics"). Against the possibility to have an Iran equivalent (or worse) in Egypt (his words: "made us fear our country would soon look like an Iranian theocracy"), the activity of the military seems to have been necessary. Note also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood "as of 2015" Muslim Brotherhood "is considered a terrorist organization by the governments of Bahrain,[7][8] Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.[9][10][11][12]" But in 2011 the U.S. politicians and operatives called them "our guys" who "won" in Egypt. Recently, however: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2230/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/223... "32) On May 27, 2015, a group of 159 Muslim Brotherhood-associated scholars from 35 nations announced the publication of a document endorsing violence in Egypt in response to a “war against Islam's principles.”." "It is the sense of Congress that— (1) the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); and (2) the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, should exercise the Secretary of State’s statutory authority by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization."

baltcode 11y ago
Regardless of your view of religion, political position, Sharia etc., are you saying that the actions of the Egyptian military on 14th August 2013, in which they fired on civilians killing somewhere around 1000 people were justified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2013_Rabaa_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2013_Rabaa_massacre)? The negative of course does not mean justifying any actions of the MB or other groups.
- acqq 11y ago
  I've personally took part in the protests which involved clashes with the police, and believe me, police doesn't shoot at the crowd "just so" (tear gas, water cannons and beating are preferred). It's obvious that the protesters weren't just "peaceful unarmed civilians" but instead were also the attackers, which then explains why there were a lot of victims, especially among the policemen, from your Wikipedia link: "Initial reports by the Egyptian Health Ministry said 235 protesters, three journalists and 43 policemen died." Given that the police were certainly equipped with the vests, helms and shields, the number of victims among the police is telling. Think how it would look like in the U.S. if 43 policemen were killed on duty. In Waco, 76 "civilians" were killed, how many casualties were policemen, I think zero? "In addition, there have been a number of attacks on police stations around the country. Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim put the number of stations attacked at 21. Angry mobs reportedly also attacked dozens of Christian properties.[20]" It's a sad story, but much more multifaceted than you present it.
  - baltcode 11y ago
    1. Have you taken part in protests under authoritarian regimes where the judiciary is biased or unreliable, or where the police force is trying to control a problematic out-group? Or is your experience from first world countries like the US, Western Europe etc? Would you excuse the police in a similar way, say in Venezuela or Iran? How about in apartheid South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? Who gets to picks and choose? 2. In case of an attack on a police station or church, what should be the correct response: a) arrest and prosecute those involved by presenting evidence in an open court, or b) fire on protestors elsewhere against a coup because you think some have the same sympathies as those involved in the said attack? The reason why feel I dejected by your line of thinking is that it makes it really easy to justify violence. Daesh can use the same line of reasoning to target those it deems part of the Egyptian state, including the opposition liberals and Muslim Brotherhood for being part of the mass that is not violent towards the state. Trump rallies the epicenter of violence and racism, BLM should be justified on opening fire on them? Since BLM opposed to police actions and hence the rule of law, the Fraternal Orders of Police and the like should open fire on them.