• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: Over 1000 Egyptians Killed after Military Rejected US/EU Negotiated Deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

numble

Member
The New York Times has a very comprehensive account of the failed negotiations that have lead to the current disaster in Egypt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-by-us-failed-to-sway-egypts-leaders.html

How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, PETER BAKER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

CAIRO — For a moment, at least, American and European diplomats trying to defuse the volatile standoff in Egypt thought they had a breakthrough.

As thousands of Islamist supporters of the ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, braced for a crackdown by the military-imposed government, a senior European diplomat, Bernardino León, told the Islamists of “indications” from the leadership that within hours it would free two imprisoned opposition leaders. In turn, the Islamists had agreed to reduce the size of two protest camps by about half.

An hour passed, and nothing happened. Another hour passed, and still no one had been released.


The Americans heightened the pressure. Two senators visiting Cairo, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, met with Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the officer who ousted Mr. Morsi and appointed the new government, and the interim prime minister, Hazem el-Beblawi, and pushed for the release of the two prisoners. But the Egyptians brushed them off.

“You could tell people were itching for a fight,” Mr. Graham recalled in an interview. “The prime minister was a disaster. He kept preaching to me: ‘You can’t negotiate with these people. They’ve got to get out of the streets and respect the rule of law.’ I said: ‘Mr. Prime Minister, it’s pretty hard for you to lecture anyone on the rule of law. How many votes did you get? Oh, yeah, you didn’t have an election.’ ”

General Sisi, Mr. Graham said, seemed “a little bit intoxicated by power.”

The senators walked out that day, Aug. 6, gloomy and convinced that a violent showdown was looming.
But the diplomats still held out hope, believing they had persuaded Egypt’s government at least not to declare the talks a failure.

The next morning, the government issued a statement declaring that diplomatic efforts had been exhausted and blaming the Islamists for any casualties from the coming crackdown. A week later, Egyptian forces opened a ferocious assault that so far has killed more than 1,000 protesters.

All of the efforts of the United States government, all the cajoling, the veiled threats, the high-level envoys from Washington and the 17 personal phone calls by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, failed to forestall the worst political bloodletting in modern Egyptian history. The generals in Cairo felt free to ignore the Americans first on the prisoner release and then on the statement, in a cold-eyed calculation that they would not pay a significant cost — a conclusion bolstered when President Obama responded by canceling a joint military exercise but not $1.5 billion in annual aid.


The violent crackdown has left Mr. Obama in a no-win position: risk a partnership that has been the bedrock of Middle East peace for 35 years, or stand by while longtime allies try to hold on to power by mowing down opponents. From one side, the Israelis, Saudis and other Arab allies have lobbied him to go easy on the generals in the interest of thwarting what they see as the larger and more insidious Islamist threat. From the other, an unusual mix of conservatives and liberals has urged him to stand more forcefully against the sort of autocracy that has been a staple of Egyptian life for decades.

For now the administration has decided to keep the close relationship with the Egyptian military fundamentally unchanged. But the death toll is climbing, the streets are descending into chaos, and the government and the Islamists are vowing to escalate.
It is unclear if the military’s new government can reimpose a version of the old order now that the public believes street protests have toppled two leaders in less than three years, or if, after winning democratic elections, the Islamists will ever again compliantly retreat.

As Mr. Obama acknowledged in a statement on Thursday, the American response turns not only on humanitarian values but also on national interests. A country consumed by civil strife may no longer function as a stabilizing ally in a volatile region.

An Enduring Headache

Mr. Obama has found Egypt’s tumultuous political transition a headache for more than two years. Accused of sticking for too long by President Hosni Mubarak, the longtime ruler in Egypt who was ousted by a popular uprising in 2011, and then criticized when he later abandoned him, Mr. Obama gambled on Mr. Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader elected a year ago. He found Mr. Morsi a useful and pragmatic partner in handling issues like a violent flare-up in Gaza. But Mr. Obama became convinced that the Egyptian was not being inclusive enough at home to stabilize his own country.

When Secretary of State John Kerry visited Cairo in the spring, he urged Mr. Morsi to reach out to his opposition. If not, Mr. Kerry warned, Mr. Morsi would set the stage for another uprising, this time against himself. But the implied threat only hardened Mr. Morsi’s resolve not to bend, his aides said.

Mr. Morsi’s failure to incorporate other factions, his habit of demonizing his critics as part of a treasonous conspiracy and a near-calamitous economic crisis combined to fire up opposition to the Islamists, which spilled out in street protests. Hard-liners with the military and intelligence services who always despised the Muslim Brotherhood saw that the group’s experiment in power might have left it more vulnerable than at any time in its eight decades underground.

The Obama administration warned the military against stepping in, noting that a coup would require an aid cutoff under American law. But on July 3 the military moved in, detaining Mr. Morsi and rounding up scores of his allies.

Mr. Obama made no public comments, opting instead for tempered written statements. He skirted the aid law by refusing to determine whether Mr. Morsi’s ouster constituted a coup, while Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel pressed the military to restore civilian governance as soon as possible.

Although Mr. Obama agreed not to restrict the aid, he postponed the delivery of four F-16 fighter jets. At the time, officials discussed pulling out of joint military exercises called Bright Star scheduled for September, but the White House opted to wait to see if the generals would follow through on their threat to clear out pro-Morsi protesters.

Western governments took a wait-and-see approach even after the military committed its first mass killing, shooting more than 60 supporters of Mr. Morsi at a sit-in on July 8. Western diplomats did not engage in earnest until July 24, when General Sisi, in dark sunglasses and military regalia, delivered a fiery speech asking the public to turn out for demonstrations giving him a “mandate” to take on the Islamists. Security forces killed 80 more Morsi supporters in their second mass shooting on the day of the demonstration.

The next morning, Morsi aides and Brotherhood leaders say, their phones began ringing with American and European diplomats fearing an imminent blood bath.

The administration enlisted people on opposite sides of the contest unfolding in Egypt. Diplomats from Qatar, a regional patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, agreed to influence the Islamists. The United Arab Emirates, determined opponents of the Islamists, were brought in to help reach out to the new authorities.

But while the Qataris and Emiratis talked about “reconciliation” in front of the Americans, Western diplomats here said they believed the Emiratis were privately urging the Egyptian security forces to crack down.

Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the Emirati foreign minister, went to Washington last month and urged the Americans not to cut off aid. The emirates, along with Saudi Arabia, had swiftly supported the military takeover with a pledge of billions of dollars, undermining Western threats to cut off critical loans or aid.

The Israelis, whose military had close ties to General Sisi from his former post as head of military intelligence, were supporting the takeover as well. Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.

Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it.


When Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, proposed an amendment halting military aid to Egypt, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter to senators on July 31 opposing it, saying it “could increase instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.” Statements from influential lawmakers echoed the letter, and the Senate defeated the measure, 86 to 13, later that day.

Building Connections

Mr. Hagel tried to forge a connection with General Sisi, the defense minister who has become the country’s de facto leader. Mr. Hagel, a 66-year-old decorated Vietnam War veteran, felt he and General Sisi, a 58-year-old graduate of the United States Army War College in Pennsylvania, “clicked right away” when they met in April, an American official said.

In a series of phone calls, Mr. Hagel pressed General Sisi for a transition back to civilian rule. They talked nearly every other day, usually for an hour or an hour and a half, lengthened by the use of interpreters. But General Sisi complained that the Obama administration did not fully appreciate that the Islamists posed a threat to Egypt and its army. The general asked Mr. Hagel to convey the danger to Mr. Obama, American officials said.

“Their whole sales pitch to us is that the Muslim Brotherhood is a group of terrorists,” said one American officer, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the dialogue.

American and European diplomats hoped to reinforce the few officials in Egypt’s interim cabinet who favored an inclusive approach, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, the vice president and Nobel Peace Prize-winning former diplomat. After the second massacre, on July 26, Mr. ElBaradei wanted to resign, but Mr. Kerry talked him out of it, arguing that he was the most potent, if not the only, voice for restraint in the government.

But General Sisi never trusted Mr. ElBaradei, and on the other side was a small core of military officers close to the general who saw a chance to finally rid Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood. Among them were Gen. Mohammed al-Tohami, a mentor and father figure to General Sisi and now head of the intelligence service, and Gen. Mahmoud Hegazy, the general’s protégé and chosen successor as head of military intelligence. And with no serious reprisals against Egypt after two mass killings, many analysts here argue that the hard-liners could only feel emboldened.

Mr. Kerry sent his deputy, William J. Burns, to Cairo, where he and a European Union counterpart scrambled to de-escalate the crisis.

Under a plan they worked out, the Muslim Brotherhood would limit demonstrations to two squares, thin out crowds and publicly condemn violence. The government would issue a similar statement, commit to an inclusive political process allowing any party to compete in elections and, as a sign of good faith, release Saad al-Katatni, the Muslim Brotherhood speaker of the dissolved Parliament, and Aboul-Ela Maadi, founder of a more moderate Islamist party. Both faced implausible charges of instigating violence, and Western diplomats felt that before the takeover, Mr. Katatni in particular had proved himself a pragmatic voice for compromise.

But on Aug. 4, the interim government surprised the diplomats by bringing charges for incitement to murder against the Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Mohamed Badie, who was in hiding, and Khairat el-Shater, its most influential leader, who had been detained.

Adding to the shock of the new charges, they came just hours before Mr. Burns and his European partner, Mr. León, were allowed to see Mr. Shater. Mr. Shater embraced the need for dialogue, but did not endorse the proposals.

Still, the diplomats grew hopeful that they had gotten through to the government. On the morning of Aug. 6, Brotherhood leaders and diplomats said, Mr. León called Amr Darrag, an adviser to Mr. Morsi and top negotiator for the Islamist coalition, and told him to expect Mr. Katatni and Mr. Maadi to be released within hours. When nothing happened, Mr. Darrag called Mr. León back, the Brotherhood officials said. Do not worry, Mr. León said, arguing that the new government must have put the release off by a day to avoid the appearance of bowing to American pressure.

Heightened Tensions

Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham arrived in Cairo amid increasing tensions. They went first to see Ambassador Anne W. Patterson. “You could see it on her face, that nobody’s listening,” Mr. Graham said. He said administration officials asked them to press for the release of the two Islamists and to push the Brotherhood to pull people off the street.

When the senators asked government officials to release the Islamist leaders, one woman on the Egyptian side stormed out. The senators warned that the United States would ultimately cut off aid if the military did not set elections and amend the Constitution.

Mr. Graham recalled arguing with General Sisi. “If Morsi had to stand for re-election anytime soon, he’d lose badly,” the senator remembered saying. “Do you agree?”

“Oh, absolutely,” the general answered.

“Then what you’re doing now is making him a martyr,” Mr. Graham said. “It’s no longer about how badly they ruled the country and how they marginalized the democratic institutions. It’s now about you.”

The meeting with the prime minister was even tenser. As they walked out, Mr. Graham said, he told Mr. McCain, “If this guy’s voice is indicative of the attitude, there’s no pulling out of this thing.”

When Egyptian state news media leaked reports of an imminent government statement that diplomacy had failed, the diplomats were stunned, and scrambled to hold it off.

The next day, Mr. León, the European envoy, assured the Islamists that although the prisoner release had fallen through, at least the Egyptians had agreed to pull back the statement, Brotherhood leaders said.

A half-hour later, it was issued nonetheless. “The phase of diplomatic efforts has ended,” it declared, calling the sit-ins “nonpeaceful” and obliquely blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for any coming violence.

The Americans and Europeans were furious, feeling deceived and manipulated. “They were used to justify the violence,” Mr. Darrag said in an interview. “They were just brought in so that the coup government could claim that the negotiations failed, and, in fact, there were no negotiations.”

Mr. Burns left Cairo with a sense of foreboding. Western diplomats in Cairo said that, despite their public statements at the time to the contrary, it was then that they, too, gave up hope.

Mr. Hagel made a last stab at holding off violence. He called General Sisi late on the afternoon of Aug. 9, and they talked for 90 minutes. “Secretary Hagel was strongly urging restraint,” said an American official briefed on the conversation. The secretary recited the same talking points he had been delivering for weeks: avoid violence, respect freedom of assembly and move toward an inclusive political transition.

But within the Egyptian government, the only real debate was about tactics and blame. Mohamed Ibrahim, the interior minister under Mr. Morsi who had kept his job by refusing to protect the Islamists, was convinced that brute force was the only way to break up sit-ins by tens of thousands of Morsi supporters. But diplomats and Egyptian officials said Mr. Ibrahim was worried that if the assaults went badly he might be held up as a scapegoat.

Last Sunday, Interior Ministry officials told journalists that the police would move in at dawn to choke off the sit-ins, cutting off food and water and gradually escalating nonlethal force. But overnight, diplomats said, Mr. Ibrahim reconsidered, worried that a gradual approach would expose the police to Brotherhood retaliation, for which he could be blamed.

Two days later, Mr. Ibrahim and the government told Mr. ElBaradei that they had a new plan to minimize casualties: maximum force to get it over with quickly, the Western diplomats said. And the military had agreed to support the police. But the attack the next morning left more than 600 dead, according to official figures that soon grew. By midday, Mr. ElBaradei had resigned.

As images of Egyptian security forces opening fire flickered across television screens in Washington, Mr. Hagel called General Sisi again and warned him that the violence had put “important elements of our longstanding defense cooperation at risk,” as he put it in a statement afterward. Mr. Kerry made the same points in tandem to the interim foreign minister, Nabil Fahmy.

Mr. Obama announced the cancellation of Bright Star exercises without saying anything about the aid. As of Friday, American officials were still working phone lines to Cairo. Mr. Kerry talked with his Egyptian counterpart, urging the government to appoint an envoy to negotiate directly with the Islamists, United States officials said. But the diplomats and military officers in the two countries seemed to be talking past each other.

“The million-dollar question now,” said one American military officer, “is where is the threshold of violence for cutting ties?”

I hope some people realize now that the coup was probably not a good idea.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68384801&postcount=847

LOL! You don't know what a disaster is. A disaster would be tens of thousands of people killed and a military strongman taking over with no promises of any future elections.

Get some perspective.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68589286&postcount=949
The point is nobody knows how things will turn out. You don't avoid taking chances on progress due to fear of the unknown.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
But within the Egyptian government, the only real debate was about tactics and blame. Mohamed Ibrahim, the interior minister under Mr. Morsi who had kept his job by refusing to protect the Islamists, was convinced that brute force was the only way to break up sit-ins by tens of thousands of Morsi supporters.

If I was a commander of the army and heard him give such an advice, I would have thought he was a double agent. It's the stupidest tactic imaginable against Islamists, it never works.

Morsi supporters will never ever stop resisting until the army pulls back. It doesn't take a sociologist or an historian to know that.

If the army really wanted to do things in order, they would have waited to have a terrorism problem (a real undeniable one) on their hands, and then simply respond in small bursts. And at best, it would have never come to that to begin with.

But Egypt is stuck, just as every other country where religion plays a large political role. In the 21st century, wherever religion has strong roots conflicts will arise because of divisions that result from rising demand for democracy.
 
Sad the US tried to do everything they could to prevent the bloodshed but failed...hard to negotiate with those drunk with power.

In the end, what can you do but let the chips fall and wait it out?
 

markot

Banned
I just don't get how the army thinks it can win branding so many people terrorists...

And honestly, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Especially when you use force on peaceful protesters. Lots of them will now want revenge...

Also, the USA aide isn't that much... Nothing compared to what the gulf states see pouring in.
 

Heshinsi

"playing" dumb? unpossible
Hmm...So the biggest exporters of wahabi terrorism, are giving away truckloads of cash to help the Egyptian army fight "terrorists"? This is a fucking embarrassment. The MB and the Army can all go straight to hell.
 

numble

Member
What the "Aid" to Egypt Buys. It looks like it almost buys enough for the tail to wag the dog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/w...military.html?pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print

Ties With Egypt Army Constrain Washington
By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON — Most nations, including many close allies of the United States, require up to a week’s notice before American warplanes are allowed to cross their territory. Not Egypt, which offers near-automatic approval for military overflights, to resupply the war effort in Afghanistan or to carry out counterterrorism operations in the Middle East, Southwest Asia or the Horn of Africa.

Losing that route could significantly increase flight times to the region.

American warships are also allowed to cut to the front of the line through the Suez Canal in times of crisis, even when oil tankers are stacked up like cars on an interstate highway at rush hour. Without Egypt’s cooperation, military missions could take days longer.

Those are some of the largely invisible ways the Egyptian military has assisted the United States as it pursues its national security interests across the region — and why the generals now in charge in Cairo are not without their own leverage in dealing with Washington in the aftermath of President Obama’s condemnation Thursday of the military’s bloody crackdown on supporters of the former president, Mohamed Morsi.

In his first overtly punitive step, Mr. Obama canceled the Bright Star military exercise, the largest and most visible sign of cooperation between the armed forces of the two nations. But given the growing violence in Egypt, it might have been impossible to guarantee the safety of the thousands of American troops scheduled to deploy for the war game, and the decision to call it off might have been the wise move regardless of the politics.

For the Pentagon, which had earlier delayed the delivery of four F-16 fighter jets to the Egyptian Air Force, other steps might be more difficult.

“We need them for the Suez Canal, we need them for the peace treaty with Israel, we need them for the overflights, and we need them for the continued fight against violent extremists who are as much of a threat to Egypt’s transition to democracy as they are to American interests,” said Gen. James N. Mattis, who retired this year as head of the military’s Central Command.

While a cozy relationship with the Egyptian military might be preferable for American interests to a radicalized, hostile government in Cairo, there is also a threshold of violence — still unknown — that, if passed, would make it impossible for the Defense Department to continue its dealings there.

As Egyptian generals familiar with the American military are no doubt aware, there have been instances when the United States restricted or even severed military-to-military relations with a useful ally, for periods both long and short, because of authoritarian practices, human rights violations or security policies at odds with those of the United States. Among the examples are Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines.

In the meantime, Obama administration officials are taking a hard look at possible incentives and punishments that might compel the generals in Cairo to end the crackdown and open a dialogue on transition to democratic governance.

“The violence is intolerable, but clearly they feel the nation of Egypt is facing a sovereign, existential crisis,” said one Obama administration official. “So while the violence is intolerable, we may be able to eventually accept these decisions if the violence ends, and quickly.”

The risk is that the United States may be left standing by as its allies in the Egyptian military lose control of the crisis.

For decades the Egyptians have helped the American military in ways that are largely unknown to the American public, said Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and an expert on the Egyptian military. Mr. Springborg noted that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — after the Turkish Parliament refused to allow the American military to use Turkish territory for crossing into Iraq from the north — Egypt gave the Pentagon immediate access for two aircraft battle groups and accompanying aircraft through the Suez Canal and across its territory.

Given the number of countries in the region that do not allow American military overflights, especially for combat missions, Egypt’s location makes it a vital, and relatively direct, access route to an unstable crescent of strategic importance.

Egypt’s role in the Camp David agreements has also been of critical value for America’s closest ally in the region, Israel. In the four decades before Camp David, Israel and Egypt fought several major wars; in the nearly four decades since, none. Even in the current crisis, the military communications systems established by Camp David to link Israel and Egypt have helped defuse tensions. When Egypt recently moved additional troops into the Sinai Peninsula — in violation of the accords — Israel quietly assented, knowing that the extra forces were to secure the border and tamp down rising militant activities.

The Obama administration has notably avoided threatening to cut off the $1.3 billion in annual military assistance to Egypt, recognizing that the money has helped guarantee peace with Israel for the past 35 years. All of the aid for this year already has been authorized, so even an order to halt the financial assistance would not have an impact until next year. In the meantime, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf nations have increased their financial support to Egypt, far surpassing the American contribution.

Beyond delaying shipment of the F-16 warplanes, officials said, there are few unfulfilled weapons contracts that could be held up as a punitive measure.

American officials looking at ways to punish the Egyptian military for the order to clear Muslim Brotherhood protest sites have looked to the lesson of Pakistan, which came under economic sanctions for its nuclear program.

Among the actions taken was ending a program of inviting young Pakistani military officers to attend armed service academic programs in the United States. One result has been a generation of Pakistani officers with no affinity for — and, more often, hostility toward — the American military. A similar result could occur if the next generation of promising Egyptian officers were not invited to American military schools.

In the end, one powerful incentive for the generals to quickly end the civil unrest and establish order — and try to make good on promises to begin a transition to legitimate governance might be economic — to attract tourism and investment. And also to preserve Egypt’s relationship with the United States.

“Both sides have a strong interest in preserving it and will work to that end,” Mr. Springborg said. “The Egyptian military will take steps to clothe the military’s behind-the-scene rule with suitable civilian trappings, making it possible for the U.S. and others to deal with it.”
 

DiscoJer

Member
It's not like the protesters are peaceful, though.

They've been busy attacking Christian churches. The Copts are just as native to Egypt as anyone else. Even more so, considering their language is a descendant of ancient Egyptian.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/08/2013816102257435227.html

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-islamists-hit-christian-churches-235144103.html

After torching a Franciscan school, Islamists paraded three nuns on the streets like "prisoners of war" before a Muslim woman offered them refuge. Two other women working at the school were sexually harassed and abused as they fought their way through a mob.

In the four days since security forces cleared two sit-in camps by supporters of Egypt's ousted president, Islamists have attacked dozens of Coptic churches along with homes and businesses owned by the Christian minority. The campaign of intimidation appears to be a warning to Christians outside Cairo to stand down from political activism.

Christians have long suffered from discrimination and violence in Muslim majority Egypt, where they make up 10 percent of the population of 90 million. Attacks increased after the Islamists rose to power in the wake of the 2011 Arab Spring uprising that drove Hosni Mubarak from power, emboldening extremists. But Christians have come further under fire since President Mohammed Morsi was ousted on July 3, sparking a wave of Islamist anger led by Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.
 

antonz

Member
lol Lindsey Graham pretending like he actually has the balls to stand up and say something like he claims he said. Fucking chicken hawk.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
The US needs Egypt as a military ally. Every piece must be in place for a future war with Iran.
 

numble

Member
The military killed 36 Islamist prisoners in a prison van on Sunday, say that they
took a guard hostage
were killed by militants trying to free them
suffocated on tear gas while trying to escape in a van
made an escape attempt and were never in a van:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/w...porters-vow-to-defy-egypts-military.html?_r=0

CAIRO — The Egyptian government acknowledged that its security forces had killed 36 Islamists in its custody on Sunday, as the country’s military leaders and Islamists vowed to keep up their fight over Egypt’s future.

The deaths were the fourth mass killing of civilians since the military took control on July 3, but the first time so many had died while in government custody.

The news of the deaths came on a day when there appeared to be a pause in the street battles that had claimed more than 1,000 lives since Wednesday, most of them Islamists and their supporters gunned down by security forces. The Islamists took measures on Sunday to avoid further confrontations, including canceling several protests over the military’s ouster of a democratically elected Islamist-led government.

While confirming the killings of the detainees on Sunday, the Ministry of the Interior said the deaths were the consequence of an escape attempt by Islamist prisoners. But officials of the main Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, described the deaths as “assassinations,” and said that the victims, which it said numbered 52, had been shot and tear-gassed through the windows of a locked prison van.

The killings were the latest indication that Egypt is careering into uncharted territory, with neither side willing to back down, Egyptians increasingly split over the way forward and no obvious political solution in sight. The government is considering banning the Brotherhood, which might force the group underground but would not unravel it from the fabric of society it has been part of for eight decades.

...

There were scant details on the prison killings on Sunday, and no explanation for why the victims were inside a prison van and had reportedly taken a prison official hostage.

The Ministry of the Interior issued conflicting and confusing accounts of what had happened, at one point claiming the prisoners had taken a guard hostage, then saying militants had attacked the prison van to free the prisoners, who were killed in the process, and then saying tear gas being used to suppress the escape had caused the prisoners to suffocate. Later, the ministry claimed the deaths had happened in the prison, not in the van.

...
 
If you give one side billions of dollars in chips (and weapons), I don't think you can say that you're just letting events take their natural course.

Isn't Qatar's aid to Egypt alone more than double of the US? In the calculus of effective threat versus losing a seat at the table with the present Egyptian administration, it would probably be a symbolic washing of the hands that does little for the situation on the ground.
 

numble

Member
Isn't Qatar's aid to Egypt alone more than double of the US? In the calculus of effective threat versus losing a seat at the table with the present Egyptian administration, it would probably be a symbolic washing of the hands that does little for the situation on the ground.
Did you not read the OP article? Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
In any case, American aid is in the form of military aid. They provide Egypt with tanks and guns.
 

liger05

Member
Care to provide the context? A cleric, some soldiers, and the Twitter handle JehadNews doesn't really tell me much.

It's a senior figure of the Coptic church again never failing to show his love for the army.

I don't want to any Christians killed but that guy can go fuck himself when he fails to see no problem parading with an army which is slaughtering Muslims daily.
 
Did you not read the OP article? Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
In any case, American aid is in the form of military aid. They provide Egypt with tanks and guns.

Qatar was obviously comfortable with the Muslim Brotherhood, but the assumption that their support won't extend to another elected regime is still an assumption. If the Mubarak elites return Egypt to a thinly veiled autocratic state less open to their influence, then yes, I presume their aid will end though.

And, yes, America does provide military aid: I'm simply pointing out that the Obama administration doesn't have as much leverage as the media coverage might suggest.
 
I honestly don't have an intuition into which side I prefer. this whole thing seems incredibly fucked up on all sides. frankly, as an american, i can't fault my government if they choose to simply do whatever they think is better for us, because it seems like the people of egypt are not going to come out of this winning either way.
 
Haven't been following the unfolding of events in Egypt closley but this is pretty fucked. It seems like US still providing aid is a weak move because it further supports a coup and a merciless gov't that seems to be tripping on lust for violence (not that this hasn't happened before).
 
I don't want to any Christians killed but that guy can go fuck himself when he fails to see no problem parading with an army which is slaughtering Muslims daily.
Seeking the support of a strong secular government makes sense when your community is harassed by the Muslim majority.
 
Comments like 'its not like the protesters are peaceful' are so much garbage. I was at a protest in Melbourne where a few anarchists smashed up cop cars and store fronts....

Would you say the same thing if the Australian army then shot 1000 people in the street as a response?

Insanity.
 

hym

Banned
Comments like 'its not like the protesters are peaceful' are so much garbage. I was at a protest in Melbourne where a few anarchists smashed up cop cars and store fronts....

Would you say the same thing if the Australian army then shot 1000 people in the street as a response?

Insanity.

43 security forces died the day the army decided to clear the traffic blockade.

14 protesters for each soldier is not that extreme. Assuming of course that the health ministry numbers are correct, the Muslim Brotherhood still claims it were 2600 deaths on Wednesday, 60:1 would be in the realm of slaughtering.

There were also protestors killing civilians, like the Christian cab driver who got lynched for having a cross on his windshield... those ratios can tilt either way.
 
West and Middle East will do nothing apart from sending alarming messages to stop the violance.

Noone wants Egypt in hands of religious Muslim groups since Egypt controls Suez Channel and is a warranty of peace with Israel.

And is a military superpower in the region.
 

warthog

Member
Comments like 'its not like the protesters are peaceful' are so much garbage. I was at a protest in Melbourne where a few anarchists smashed up cop cars and store fronts....

Would you say the same thing if the Australian army then shot 1000 people in the street as a response?

Insanity.

These protesters are not just smashing up things...
 
These protesters are not just smashing up things...
No, they've killed security forces who are using bulldozers and live rounds to break up the protesters.

I don't support the Ikhwan but even the VP couldn't stomach this crack down. 14-1 at lowest estimate is a massacre.
 
All of this was bound to happen. The first revolution "lacked" the blood necessary to change anything.

Old structures, old ideals, old bullshit tactics, corruption. Everything was still in place. Granted, it's an incredibly difficult situation. Dissolving the entire police apparatus sounds excessive, but that was something necessary. And the first weeks after Mubaraks ousting the police went into hiding anyway, leaving the military and neighborhood watches to protect the streets.

The courts would have been busy for years prosecuting all the corrupt, torturing, extortionists in the police, but just replacing the higher ups was clearly never going to cut it.
All the cops below them in rank learned everything they know from watching the removed guys. The goverment should have released several batches of policy academy (stop laughing, that's how its called) graduates early and put them in place.
People without blood on their hands, people with untainted ideals.

The military command running the transitional phase between Mubarak and the elections burned up any good-will people had for the military, after they dicked around and pushed dates for elections and the new constitution further and further.
Yet removing these old remnants of the high military command who were running the military under Mubarak, Tantawi or Samy Anan, has come back to bite Morsi in the ass. Apparently Sisi's wife wearing a niqab, was qualification enough for Morsi to trust him. At least Tantawi and Anan had no interest in power.. and while delaying the transition, they were lastly the men who paved the way for the first revolution and first elected government/president.

Hopefully american intelligence services find another strong man with enough support in the military ranks and morals to maybe incite another coup and give back power to the people. The obvious danger in such a tactic is of course that it burns down any bridges left to the military junta in power now and that Egypt could fall into a spiral of open civil war, if a counter-coup isn't sucessful right off the bat.
The snake's head needs to be cut right away, meaning assassinating Sisi and his people be it by force or in open courts.

Trying to solve the crisis diplomatically will not be remembered by those who were imprisoned and persecuted for years before the regime and about to be imprisoned and persecuted again although being the only legitimately elected representatives of the people. The U.S. should be fearful of letting things just run their course, if they do they can bet on the next Bin Laden terrorizing US-citizens being Egyptian.
 
As the article says, whatever Obama does now he's kind of fucked.

Even if he does decide "enough is enough" and withdraws US Aid, Sisi will have plenty of backers who can make up the shortfall.

It seems very much like Sisi has been groomed to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood which wouldn't have been difficult as the military hates them.

But it seems very shortsighted to view the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat, try to eradicate them and have them turn into a threat.
 

Simplet

Member
Comments like 'its not like the protesters are peaceful' are so much garbage. I was at a protest in Melbourne where a few anarchists smashed up cop cars and store fronts....

Would you say the same thing if the Australian army then shot 1000 people in the street as a response?

Insanity.

Well to be perfectly fair, you rarely see australian anarchists gun down busloads of policemen....
 
DerZuhälter;77117471 said:
And I rarely see a police-/militaryforce trying to dissolve a protest with live ammunition and snipers on rooftops. Rubber bullets seem to be no option.

I think what's being said here is that the comparison being drawn between some Australians bashing shopfronts and the MB protestors is a hollow one.
 
I think what's being said here is that the comparison being drawn between some Australians bashing shopfronts and the MB protestors is a hollow one.

At what point does it cross over to being a general justification for the shooting of protesters with live ammunition? If they are burning things? Smashing cop cars? If someone affiliated with them shoots a cop?

Any violence directed by factions within the protest movement against police should never, logically, allowing any sort of police response. Just as the backing by the Copts of the coup doesn't make lynching them okay, the deaths of security forces in clashes doesn't make the killing of probably at least 1000 protesters okay.


I had to use an example from the West, because it seems to be relatively easy for people to write off massacres as expedient or justifiable when it comes to the Middle East.
 
At what point does it cross over to being a general justification for the shooting of protesters with live ammunition? If they are burning things? Smashing cop cars? If someone affiliated with them shoots a cop?Any violence directed by factions within the protest movement against police should never, logically, allowing any sort of police response. Just as the backing by the Copts of the coup doesn't make lynching them okay, the deaths of security forces in clashes doesn't make the killing of probably at least 1000 protesters okay.


I had to use an example from the West, because it seems to be relatively easy for people to write off massacres as expedient or justifiable when it comes to the Middle East.

If protestors are shooting back and attacking state buildings I think.

Don't misinterpret me: I'm not saying the police/military are justified to shoot protestors, in fact I think the way the military has handled this is simply moronic. But a portion of the blame for the bloodhshed lies with the particular protestors who've escalated the conflict by shooting and burning.
 
The New York Times has a very comprehensive account of the failed negotiations that have lead to the current disaster in Egypt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/middleeast/pressure-by-us-failed-to-sway-egypts-leaders.html

How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, PETER BAKER and MICHAEL R. GORDON



I hope some people realize now that the coup was probably not a good idea.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68384801&postcount=847



http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=68589286&postcount=949

Amusing thoughts by speculawyer and Angry Fork, as usual.

OT: The thing with the situation in Egypt right now is that there isn't any legitimitely OK political force there that has a strong support from the local population that could actually help develop Egypt. It's either the MB fundamentalists or the corrupt army dictators. Loss-loss however you look at it.
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It's very disheartening to see that so many people still believe that this is a black and white, good vs. evil situation instead of the chaotic mess that it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom