Comment by acqq | Hacker News Reader

Comment by acqq | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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

"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/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."

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)?

The negative of course does not mean justifying any actions of the MB or other groups.

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.

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.

1. Yes, precisely, that's exactly why I can claim that. I won't go into details, but I'm living the situations again as I write this, even if I'd rather not have had these experiences, looking back (that's how I can relate to the author of the article).

2. It was obviously not "fire on the protesters elsewhere" but the "fire to protect yourself (or the innocent people) from the attack." Again, at least 43 policemen were killed.

The rest of the post tries to introduce logical fallacies to win the argument. We discussed the specific case.

> police doesn't shoot at the crowd "just so" (tear gas, water cannons and beating are preferred)

There are thousands of times when this hasn't been true, from Tiananmen Square to Kent State to the Plaza de las Tres Culturas to, yes, Rabaa. The government always claims in these situations that the police were acting in self-defense but it is rarely true (because people are rarely suicidal).

You say you want to discuss "the specific case" but present no actual evidence from Rabaa. Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say (not a perfect source of course but a lot better than the military regime's health ministry):

> The systematic and widespread killing of at least 1,150 demonstrators by Egyptian security forces in July and August 2013 probably amounts to crimes against humanity... In the August 14 dispersal of the Rab’a al-Adawiya sit-in alone, security forces, following a plan that envisioned several thousand deaths, killed a minimum of 817 people and more likely at least 1,000.

> The 188-page report, “All According to Plan: The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt,” documents the way the Egyptian police and army methodically opened fire with live ammunition on crowds of demonstrators opposed to the military’s July 3 ouster of Mohamed Morsy, Egypt’s first elected civilian president, at six demonstrations between July 5 and August 17, 2013. While there is also evidence that some protesters used firearms during several of these demonstrations, Human Rights Watch was able to confirm their use in only a few instances, which do not justify the grossly disproportionate and premeditated lethal attacks on overwhelmingly peaceful protesters.

(https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/12/egypt-raba-killings-like...)

And, look, nobody can stop you from issuing tissue-thin justifications for political massacres and then crying "logical fallacy" when somebody draws out the implications for you, but it doesn't come off very well.

Nobody can stop you misinterpreting what the other side writes:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-03-27

The Egyptian National Council for Human Rights considers HRW report biased, and they state why:

http://www.nchregypt.org/index.php/en/media-center/news/1427...

"The author of the Human Rights Watch report has intentionally disregarded one of the fundamental testimonies from the reporter Maged Atef about the murder of one of the Police officers after which the exchange of fires started. However, the report, in an obvious bias stand, has taken into account this testimony in more than twenty parts of it related to other happenings which do not condemn the Muslim Brotherhood."

"In addition, the author of the report did not mention any of the human rights violations committed by the management of the sit-in, including cases of kidnapping and torture, as well as cases of using the persons who were participating in the sit-in as human shields and detaining them in the sit-in."

I'm not saying I agree either only with NCHR or HRW. But I'm claiming that the categorization you promote is biased, especially because you don't explain how it is possible to have so many victims among the police unless they were killed by the armed opponents, which, if the later were shooting from the mass, obviously disregarded the lives of the people around them too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com