Violence and fog in Egypt continues
Today the violence and killing in Egypt has continued in similar fashion to that of yesterday. The reports (for what they’re worth) are that the death toll is now over 500.
Here are some photos; I find that often the British newspapers are better for that sort of thing than our MSM is.
As for truth—well, here are some excerpts that might help you decide where it lies:
This is the horrifying moment an armoured police vehicle was pushed off a bridge by Egyptian protestors in a day of violence which left at least 343 people dead.
The van plunged off the 6th October Bridge before demonstrators attacked the wreckage yesterday. It is not known how many people were on board and how many people survived the fall, but bloodied men were seen lying around the van moments afterwards…
Witnesses said many of those killed were hit by snipers on surrounding rooftops. Heavily-armed police and troops reportedly opened fire with machine guns on thousands of demonstrators, including women and children…
The Muslim Brotherhood claimed over 2,000 people had been killed and thousands wounded in eight hours of continuous firing while Egyptian authorities said Mr Morsi’s supporters opened fire on security forces.
The exact death toll could not be confirmed but an AFP reporter counted at least 124 bodies in three separate locations around the camp in the capital, with many appearing to have died from gunshot wounds…
In a statement, the Brotherhood said: ‘The world cannot sit back and watch while innocent men, women and children are being indiscriminately slaughtered. The world must stand up to the military junta’s crime before it is too late.’…
Video footage from a camera on board an Army helicopter was released by officials who said it showed protesters firing on security forces.
Live TV footage on several channels appeared to show hooded Brotherhood gunmen brandishing what appeared to be small automatic rifles and firing them in the direction of security forces.
I trust neither side to report honestly on this. The Muslim Brotherhood (the “protest” side) in particular are highly motivated to provoke the violence and then use it for anti-government propaganda, in time-honored fashion. The government is hardly angelic, either. And the press is either clueless (sometimes for understandable “fog of war” reasons) and/or biased and part of the propaganda.
And photos? They each capture a moment in time, and show us the picture of what happened at that moment, but not what caused it or why or even in most cases who. Interesting but ultimately useless—except, again for propaganda.
And then there’s our own government:
The United States lead urgent calls for restraint warning that “the world is watching.”
Ah—“the world is watching.” For those who remember the 60s, like me, that should bring back memories. The man who said that to Egypt is named Josh Earnest, and he is a White House spokesman and deputy to Jay Carney. Earnest is too young (born in 1975) to remember the famous quote himself, but it occurred during the 1968 demonstrations and was shouted by antiwar protestors outside the Democratic Convention as they provoked police violence against them (not shooting or deaths, however) and the Chicago police willingly obliged by providing the press with the visuals, which were aired on TV in real time.
I have written about those 1968 Chicago demonstrations at some length here; you can also read up on their many complexities (of which we young people watching at the time were largely unaware) here. Suffice to say that in Chicago, the protest leaders (not necessarily the rank and file) purposely wanted to spark a violent police reaction and use it as propaganda. And so it came to pass.
In Egypt, they play for higher stakes. And although the whole world is watching, I’m not sure the world is caring all that much anymore, or at the very least the whole world hasn’t a clue what to do about it, if anything.
Remarks such as this one (from the earnest Mr. Earnest again, speaking for the White House) are almost laughable, although I suppose they must be uttered anyway:
We urge the government of Egypt and all parties in Egypt to refrain from violence and resolve their differences peacefully.
There are forces on the march in Egypt that are not going to become Quakers overnight, whatever we might say. Perhaps all this would have happened anyway without Obama’s intervention and encouragement of the toppling of Mubarak, but one wonders. And Obama cannot possibly say this was an unforeseeable result of getting rid of a strongman who held such forces in check; it was entirely foreseeable, and Obama has consistently supported a process that would predictably lead to it.
[ADDENDUM: Obama says, “We don’t take sides.”
Yeah, like when Mubarak was under threat?]
Thank you for that last paragraph Neo; Obama has done poorly in foreign afffairs; especially the Middle-East.
Elections do matter; no matter how thrilling it was for some on the left to “vote for the Black man” they screwed up big time.
I can’t get over the difference in the looks and demeanor of the crowds protesting against the the Muslim Brotherhood rule on the one hand, versus those demanding Islamist domination on the other.
Almost like two subspecies.
And just as a side note, what’s it with those strange “beards” so many of them grow? Is that a specifically Bro’hood look? It’s as if they only let whiskers grow on the neck below the chin and jaw line, and shave the cheeks below the eyes and the upper lip almost completely. Kinda pathetic looking … as beards go.
RE: toppling Mubarak. In the early 1960s South Viet Nam was in turmoil and revolting against Diem. The most famous incident was the self immolation of a Buddhist monk, a truly shocking act. The Kennedy inner circle decided that Diem and his brother-in-law Nhu had to go. Much as I despise the man, Lyndon Johnson spoke the only true wisdom at the Cabinet meeting where the decision to remove Diem was made. He asked how do you know that who comes afterwards will be better? They ignored him and the result was far worse.
Notice who is behind who, and what collapsed, and how it resembles the same thing from last century…
SAdly, this ultimately will be for a repeat of the two wars of encirclement that hve passed before, with certain peoples now preventing others from going to a certain place to pray… but, in a short while, egypts coptic problem wont be a problem…
DNW:
The beard? No doubt they are followers of Thoreau.
A bit of philosophy here, if one may: The simplest formulation of conservatism, by a brilliant man named Michael Oakeshott, is that socialism, the nanny state, whatever we might call it, is doomed to fail because we can never know enough to manage everyone’s life for him or her. This limit to omniscience can be seen elsewhere, as in the successive decisions to do away with certain South Vietnamese leaders, by a group known, seriously, at first, as The Best and the Brightest. Some people attribute the same arrogance to people dubbed ‘Neoconservatives’ although, in truth , that seems more and more like a propaganda line, not really supported by the data. Yes, I know, we are called Neocons, and so describe ourselves, because we used to be ‘Liberals.’ However, the process of change nearly always involves a realization that our knowledge is limited, and this humility leads, almost inevitably, to a rather different world-view. It is worth noting, in passing, that the Bush administration was quite humble regarding the facts, known and unknown. I well remember how Secretary Rumsfeld was derided for talking about things we don’t know that we don’t know. This humble acceptance of our own ignorance and of our necessity to act, when we did not know everything, was among the first things that I found truly admirable about GWB.
Obama and Leftists must be enjoying this. THey have had a natural sadistic interest in entertainment for quite awhile.
1960s followers, given the sandals and the angry contorted faces. Though their desperation isn’t quiet.
But yeah, I knew there was something both rank and annoyingly familiar about it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Walt_Whitman%2C_age_28%2C_1848.png
” And Obama cannot possibly say this was an unforeseeable result of getting rid of a strongman who held such forces in check; it was entirely foreseeable, and Obama has consistently supported a process that would predictably lead to it.”
Perhaps this is once again an example of the master intellect himself having intended all this from the start, and we, those who underestimate the genius of Obama, will be shocked at the audacity of his true plan when he reveals it to us.
Surely there is an article or editorial somewhere speculating that Obama DID foresee and deliberately plan this — only it is we who again underestimating him — he’s probably thinking many steps ahead of the rest of the world – how could they hope to keep up with him?
Nobody has ever made the presidency look easier – the boredom of just screwing up America is probably driving him crazy.
southpaw:
Please don’t misunderstand me—I am hardly ruling out the idea that Obama intended it. Recall that I am not one to subscribe to the idea that the proper answer to the “Obama: fool or knave?” question is “fool.”
Given we are talking about Muslims, we can assume that the Brotherhood is lying most of the time. We can also assume that getting women and children killed is part of their plan.
When your enemy does not mind dying you have to kill lots of them to have an effect. The military understands this. This brings to mind our discussion of Gen. Sherman.
Mr. Frank Says:
August 15th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
Heh.
I’ll make the popcorn.
neo-neocon Says:
August 15th, 2013 at 4:58 pm
I think what Obama intends is to utterly isolate the United States in the world. By the time he’s finished, America won’t have an ally left, and no one will ever trust us again.
Egypt is just one of those eggs that needed to be broken. And note how many non-Brotherhood Egyptians blame the U.S. for this situation.
Neither is on the side of the angels but of the two, the army is far more preferable, as they are not terrorists. The Brotherhood was organizing to strike first, so the army struck first, which was wise as far as immediate tactics go. The only way the army stays in charge is if they are ruthless towards the Brotherhood because it’s certain that the Brotherhood will be and is ruthless towards its enemies.
“socialism, the nanny state, whatever we might call it, is doomed to fail because we can never know enough to manage everyone’s life for him or her.” Michael Adams
The far left certainly wants power and control but the nanny state only extends as far as its needed. When the nanny state finally runs out of other people’s money, it settles for equality of misery among the plebs. Should any of the plebs protest against the elite’s privileges, the steel fist is unleashed.
rickl,
Obama intends to do far more than utterly isolate the United States in the world. This is a partial insight into Obama’s mind-set and intentions; “Why the law does not matter to Obama”
Obama means to entrench the process of fundamental transformation of America into AmeriKa both domestic and foreign, such that it cannot be undone. That is the legacy he seeks.
neo: “Ah–’the world is watching.’ For those who remember the 60s, like me, that should bring back memories.”
Yes, yes, it certainly does. Here’s what happened when the U.S. instituted Operation Linebacker II in 1972. From wiki:
“Both the Soviet Union and China denounced the bombing, while some Western countries also criticized the US operation. In a famous speech, Olaf Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden, compared the bombings to a number of historical “crimes” including the bombing of Guernica, the massacres of Oradour-sur-Glane, Babi Yar, Katyn, Lidice and Sharpeville, and the extermination of Jews and other groups at Treblinka, and said that “now another name can be added to this list: Hanoi, Christmas 1972”. His protests resulted in that the U.S. withdrew their ambassador from Sweden and told Sweden to not send a new ambassador to Washington.[90][91] In America, Nixon was criticized as a “madman”, and some of the people who supported Operation Linebacker I questioned the necessity and unusual intensity of Operation Linebacker II.[92]”
No matter what happens when the “world is watching” there will be critics. Especially if there are Muslims or communists getting their butts kicked.
If the Egyptian Army can be brutal enough and effective enough, the MB will quickly realize they can’t win in the streets and must revert to their old tactics of subversion and terrorism. My prediction is that by January we will have a “Mubarak II” government in charge or else the entire ME will be aflame. I can also predict that the Obama administration is not game planning for either eventuality.
What generations of Americans broke their back and spilled oceans of sweat working to build, the Left will destroy in seconds.
Such is the nature of evil and its ease of use.
JJ,
It’s important to mention that Nixon’s institution of Operation Linebacker II in 1972 was NOT to win the war. Nixon and his administration had fully accepted the view that given the mood of the American public, unknowingly shaped and influenced by the media (Cronkite, etc.)…that the war was unwinnable.
Nixon’s sole purpose in instituting Operation Linebacker II was to force the N. Vietnamese to the peace table. Nixon sought an ‘honorable’ retreat and disengagement.
Ymarsakar @ 12:00 am,
Exactly correct.
JJ,
“My prediction is that by January we will have a “Mubarak II” government in charge or else the entire ME will be aflame. I can also predict that the Obama administration is not game planning for either eventuality.”
Excellently stated and I concur.
It is now Friday in Egypt, and the mosques are about to do what they do so well.
Get your popcorn ready.
G.B.: “Nixon’s sole purpose in instituting Operation Linebacker II was to force the N. Vietnamese to the peace table. Nixon sought an ‘honorable’ retreat and disengagement.”
True that. However, with just a bit more desire to actually win and a better understanding of the situation on the ground in Hanoi, Nixon could have won the war. I know, Monday Morning Quarterbacking is easy with 20/20 hindsight. But there is a lesson there that should be learned by anyone who is in a military leadership role. As John Negroponte caustically opined, “We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.” Yes, and something to avoid if at all possible.
Democrats removed Nixon from power. He was planning on enforcing the peace treaty with more bombers, however….
It’s nothing else that someone else shouldn’t be doing in Afghanistan right now.
We didn’t lose because the Vietnamese, Russians, or Afghan insurgents. We lost because of Democrats. That’s about it.