Irish teenager is 'being beaten to hell' in a Cairo prison

Sunglasses Ron

Leftist wrote: »

Yeah, those people who travelled to afghanistan, a war zone for the past 11years are teh same as people who went to Egypt which has descended into violent counter-protest in the past few weeks.

They certainly share a great deal of their views.

If a hardline catholic was protesting in northern ireland in the 1960s would you view it the same way as a muslim protesting in egypt in 2013?

You seem to be mixing nationalism with religious fundamentalism. But yes, if Catholics in the North had been protesting demanding that the state force people to go to mass every Sunday and made pre marital sex a criminal offence, of course, yes, I would tell em to get ****ed. A Muslim version of this, complete with burqas, a ban on alcohol and all the rest of the Saudi legal code are exactly where these guys are trying to go. And I don't have much sympathy for Irish citizens caught trying to prop this type of nonsense up.

shane9689 wrote: »

guilty until proven innocent i see...real smart, real smart

Being quite honest, in the case of Al Quaeda I am all for drones and extraordinary rendition. Just because slating Obama has become an in and trendy thing to be doing over the last six months does not mean I am suddenly going to buy into a load of conspiracy theory bollocks and demand fair and balanced human rights for terrorists who operate in areas which are beyond the reach of more traditional means of arresting them.

conorhal

My name is URL wrote: »

People have gone off and fought in wars; for their ideals, and to protect what they believe in since.. forever.

It's only recently that Irish people were officially 'forgiven' for going off and fighting the Nazis, or whatever elements of that war they were idealistically opposed to. They weren't doing so because it was a publicly endorsed or popular form of action.. at the time it was seen as almost treacherous to the state and its interests.

Nobody is saying they should receive 4 star treatment, but it's up to our diplomats and the links with other countries we have formed over the years; to ensure that civilians are treated fairly. Otherwise what's the point in having diplomatic ties with anyone.. and why does anyone who ever fights in a war deserve to be treated humanely?

Yeah, but going to fight with the Muslim Brotherhood against Sisi, is kind of like joining the Nazi's to fight Stalin......

Sunglasses Ron

conorhal wrote: »

Yeah, but going to fight with the Muslim Brotherhood against Sisi, is kind of like joining the Nazi's to fight Stalin......

Exactly. So what if the MB were democratically elected anyway? So were the Nazis. Mitt Romney nearly was. Sarah Palin got in in Alaska. Tony Blair, Fianna Fail, the list of complete ****, traitors, murderers and general fools democratically elected that their respective nations would be better off without is endless.

conorhal

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Exactly. So what if the MB were democratically elected anyway? So were the Nazis. Mitt Romney nearly was. Sarah Palin got in in Alaska. Tony Blair, Fianna Fail, the list of complete ****, traitors, murderers and general fools democratically elected that their respective nations would be better off without is endless.

The Muslim brotherhood are more like Putin and Mugabe, they embrace democracy only in so far is it allows them into power, after that it becomes a rather disposable commodity.

I'm irritated to have to hear the Muslim Brotherhood on every news program bleating about the restoration of democracy when anybody that's paid even the most scant attention to what has been going on in Egypt over the past two years understands the hypocrisy of that position, given that the very first thing the Brotherhood did on attaining their democratic mandate was to start dismantling democracy in Egypt.

Like Putin and Mugabe, the Brotherhood's view of democracy is defined as 'one man, one vote ...one time'. After that you can democratically elect any Muslim Brotherhood candidate approved by the mullahs that you wish.

Islamism or any theocratic state is in it's nature, fundamentally opposed to democracy, because in a democracy people are entitled to enact laws not approved by 'the book' (whichever book you may chose that to be) and thus, no theocratic party which has an absolutist stance on the primacy of Islamic law can permit democratic decisions to infringe upon Islamic law, so democracy has to go.

I'm glad the Brotherhood have been chucked out. It's clear that having had a taste of the Muslim Brotherhoods version of democracy, a large chunk of Egypt would rather live in a police state, which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about those goons.

old_aussie

The Irish people trapped in the moske, wasn't their father the head dude in the moske

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

The Irish people trapped in the moske, wasn't their father the head dude in the moske

What?

bumper234

old_aussie wrote: »

The Irish people trapped in the moske, wasn't their father the head dude in the moske

In clonskea in Dublin

old_aussie

Is there any substantiated proof that he was beaten?(the son in Cairo that is)

old_aussie

bumper234 wrote: »

In clonskea in Dublin

Thanks, wasn't sure if it was the moske in Cairo or Dublin

old_aussie

Nodin wrote: »

What?

lol, what part are you having a problem understanding?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

old_aussie wrote: »

The Irish people trapped in the moske, wasn't their father the head dude in the moske

Not in that Mosque he wasn't.

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

lol, what part are you having a problem understanding?

They took shelter in a mosque. The father had nothing to do with it.

the_monkey

They're not Irish tho ... why is the media getting into such a fuzz over this ?

Nodin

the_monkey wrote: »

They're not Irish tho ... why is the media getting into such a fuzz over this ?

They're Irish citizens, as are their parents.

bumper234

the_monkey wrote: »

They're not Irish tho ... why is the media getting into such a fuzz over this ?

oh my here we go again.

They are Irish citizens they have lived here for 18 years (most of their lives) and the young lad was born here.

Cody Pomeray

I have a bit of a problem with the coverage of this.

There is currently a girl in a Peruvian prison, who appears to any multicellular organism and above, to be clearly guilty of drug trafficking. The media have - commendably, actually - been entirely sympathetic to her. They have been almost uniformly silent on an obviously preposterous claim she is making.

On the other hand, we have four Irish people, one of whom was shot at, in an Egyptian prison for protesting a military coup. Whatever you think about Mohammad Morsi, the awkward truth is that these are four young people who are courageously standing up for their principles.

Egypt's political establishment is molten and confused, but these young activists are clearly stating their intentions as pursuant to democracy. And yet the Irish media has vacillated between being wary, and bewildered, to downright hostile. They are differentiated as "Irish citizens" as opposed to simply being "Irish", as though to concede some formal technicality.

Whether you agree with the Muslim brotherhood or not, what Ireland needs is more activists who are willing to immerse themselves in change, and preferably not have suffer the media's chagrin, while the latter bleeds tears over the foolish fate of a drugs mule.

partyatmygaff

You could call the IRA "activists willing to immerse themselves in change", doesn't mean we need more of them. Activism is not in itself a good thing.

Cody Pomeray

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You could call the IRA "activists willing to immerse themselves in change", doesn't mean we need more of them.

Ireland and Egypt are not really comparable.

Most people would say that, since the GFA, the IRA's activities pursuant to the unification of the island are no longer compatible with democracy. In Ireland, there is a clear democratic process. In Egypt, Morsi enjoyed a greater form of democratic legitimacy than his opposition.

In any case, these Irish people were peacefully protesting a military coup. They are not comparable with the IRA on any level. Any such likeness is exactly the sort of hostility I am talking about.

partyatmygaff

In any case, these Irish people were peacefully protesting a military coup. They are not comparable with the IRA on any level. Any such likeness is exactly the sort of hostility I am talking about.

Just to make it clear, I was not likening them to the IRA. The point I was making is that activism isn't inherently good, the cause you support is what makes it good or bad.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Most people would say that, since the GFA, the IRA's activities pursuant to the unification of the island are no longer compatible with democracy. In Ireland, there is a clear democratic process. In Egypt, Morsi enjoyed a greater form of democratic legitimacy than his opposition.

Yes, he won an election. Does that mean he can fail to uphold his promises, attempt to monopolise power for himself and his party, silence and intimidate critics and stay in power against the will of the population?

The "opposition" were the millions who protested, the military became involved well after the campaign to have him removed from power and for early elections took off. The military were not the ones who requested his removal from power.

As for democracy, all their rubbish about being pro-democracy is no more than another one of their lies. How can they claim to be democratic when their primary aim is to form a caliphate? They're pro-democracy when they need democracy to get in and take power but once they're in power that goes out the window. I can't imagine a theocracy who believe they're practicing the word of God being willing to rotate power to other Islamists let alone secularists.

The military gave the Muslim Brotherhood enough rope to hang themselves. All the christian and non muslim murders sanctioned by Morsi and the dingbat constitution he and his cronies were writing up was the last straw for the military.

Not saying it is right and democracy isn't a walk in the park especially for Egypt who has been under the thumb of one despot or another. They are feeling it out and they are going down a good road by keeping religious lunatics out of the affairs of state. Give it time.

Also those young people should have not been there. It was their free decision to go but they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Why should they get special treatment too? Who gives a hoot if they are Irish, they should have left that Mosque when they were told, but didn't. Hence, chokey.

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Just to make it clear, I was not likening them to the IRA. The point I was making is that activism isn't inherently good, the cause you support is what makes it good or bad.

Yes, he won an election. Does that mean he can fail to uphold his promises, attempt to monopolise power for himself and his party, silence and intimidate critics and stay in power against the will of the population?

The "opposition" were the millions who protested, the military became involved well after the campaign to have him removed from power and for early elections took off. The military were not the ones who requested his removal from power.

As for democracy, all their rubbish about being pro-democracy is no more than another one of their lies. How can they claim to be democratic when their primary aim is to form a caliphate? They're pro-democracy when they need democracy to get in and take power but once they're in power that goes out the window. I can't imagine a theocracy who believe they're practicing the word of God being willing to rotate power to other Islamists let alone secularists.

So shooting protesters in the street is democracy now. Good to know.....

wes

Edz87 wrote: »

All the christian and non muslim murders sanctioned by Morsi and the dingbat constitution he and his cronies were writing up was the last straw for the military.

You have a link for this?

partyatmygaff

wes wrote: »

So shooting protesters in the street is democracy now. Good to know.....

No one said that.

Unless you've forgotten, Morsi was removed well before any of the recent violence started.

One other thing, before you start asking "What is democracy?" can you clarify if you think justifying arson against innocent parties and promising to kill your opponents in public rallies is part of democracy? Cheers.

wes

wes wrote: »

You have a link for this?

Google, how does it work....

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No one said that.

And yet that is very much the impression from those who support the army.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Unless you've forgotten, Morsi was removed well before any of the recent violence started and before you start asking "What is democracy?" can you clarify if you think promising to kill your opponents in public rallies is democracy?

When did they do that? The video linked by you, they never said they would kill anyone. They promised consequences, which could mean several things.

Meanwhile, we have people being killed in the street, after the coup decided to reject a peaceful resolution.

Nodin

Edz87 wrote: »

Google, how does it work....

The one who makes the claim backs it up.

wes

Edz87 wrote: »

Google, how does it work....

So, I take from your lack of bothering to provide a link, that it either isn't true or grossly exaggerated. Not my job to back up your argument btw.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Just to make it clear, I was not likening them to the IRA. The point I was making is that activism isn't inherently good, the cause you support is what makes it good or bad.

What you do seem to be doing, is throwing them all in together with the worst elements of the brotherhood. I'd suggest that kind of generalisation is one of the main problems of Morsi and co.

Cody Pomeray

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Just to make it clear, I was not likening them to the IRA. The point I was making is that activism isn't inherently good, the cause you support is what makes it good or bad.

Which is why I qualified my support for their activism by citing their opposition to a military coup, and by their claims (made vicariously, through family members, the prisoners being indisposed) to supporting democracy.

Yes, he won an election. Does that mean he can fail to uphold his promises, attempt to monopolise power for himself and his party, silence and intimidate critics and stay in power against the will of the population?

Of course he has broken his election promises - that's why people have been legitimately protesting in Egypt.

However, there are substantial grounds for asserting that a military coup is an unacceptable act in the case of Egypt, where the period in which the elected leader has been in power has been brief, where he retains substantial public support, and further where there is now a real risk of a long term disorder of the constitutional hierarchy of that country, which faces the prospect of an activist and overbearing military service.

I think it is regretful that the focus on activists promoting the latter should be so negative as it is, which is deeply contrasting against the treatment of a drugs runner.

partyatmygaff

wes wrote: »

When did they do that? The video linked by you, they never said they would kill anyone. They promised consequences, which could mean several things.

Do you understand Arabic? The english subtitles are fairly accurate, if not.

Following the Christians protesting against the Sharia-heavy constitution, what he said was "To the Copts, whoever splashes water on Morsi's legitimancy we'll splash with blood.". The idiom "splash water on something" means to disrespect or challenge in this context. As for "splash blood", i'm going to predict you'll say "They didn't say kill. They're just going to throw blood on them." or something equally ridiculous to try and exonerate them.

partyatmygaff

Nodin wrote: »

What you do seem to be doing, is throwing them all in together with the worst elements of the brotherhood. I'd suggest that kind of generalisation is one of the main problems of Morsi and co.

I'm not. There's nothing wrong with standing in peaceful protest which is what all these four ever did. The same can't be said for other MB supporters.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you understand Arabic? The english subtitles are fairly accurate, if not.

Following the Christians protesting against the Sharia-heavy constitution, what he said was "To the Copts, whoever splashes water on Morsi's legitimancy we'll splash with blood.". The idiom "splash water on something" means to disrespect or challenge in this context. As for "splash blood", i'm going to predict you'll say "They didn't say kill. They're just going to throw blood on them." or something equally ridiculous to try and exonerate them.

....what's that to do with the four inside....? They've been in Egypt since June. You've no idea that they subscribe to those views, or that they would if they knew of them.

wes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you understand Arabic? The english subtitles are fairly accurate, if not.

Following the Christians protesting against the Sharia-heavy constitution, what he said was "To the Copts, whoever splashes water on Morsi's legitimancy we'll splash with blood.". The idiom "splash water on something" means to disrespect or challenge in this context. As for "splash blood", i'm going to predict you'll say "They didn't say kill. They're just going to throw blood on them." or something equally ridiculous to try and exonerate them.

Fair enough, they did make threats.

Still not quite as bad as shooting protesters in the streets, and imprisoning them, torturing them etc. So I take it the threats made by some of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership, justifies this then?

Why was the offer to peaceful end this ignored? You can talk about what the Brotherhood has said in the past, and in fairness all the crap they pulled in the past as well, but the current situation is unjustifiable. None of the violence was needed, and the Brotherhood can hardly be held responsible for the military decision to kill people.

Nodin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not. There's nothing wrong with standing in peaceful protest which is what all these four ever did. The same can't be said for other MB supporters.

There is indeed a dubious element amongst them, and as such I didn't think the initial coup a nessecarily bad thing. However the armys actions since then have been 'less than reassuring', to be mild about it.

wes

wes wrote: »

So, I take from your lack of bothering to provide a link, that it either isn't true or grossly exaggerated. Not my job to back up your argument btw.

Why did the army take over? Why did millions of people protest against Morsi in the first place?

Are my claims that it was because he was trying to implement a repressive regime based on religion totally wrong? That's the way it looks to me but who knows for sure though.

Maybe Morsi had evidence of UFO's and wanted to release it and America said no.

wes

Edz87 wrote: »

Why did the army take over? Why did millions of people protest against Morsi in the first place?

The protesters were unhappy with his rule, and there were various other genuine grivances. None of which justify a violent coup btw.

The army cleared want revenge, as evidenced by there current violent campaign that has killed 100s, and stopping any possible peaceful resolution.

Edz87 wrote: »

Are my claims that it was because he was trying to implement a repressive regime based on religion totally wrong? That's the way it looks to me but who knows for sure though.

You made this claim, and this was the claim I asked about:

Edz87 wrote: »

All the christian and non muslim murders sanctioned by Morsi and the dingbat constitution he and his cronies were writing up was the last straw for the military.

I was asking about that specific claim. You have not provided a link, and have refused to do so, and are now pretending, I asked about something else. You are being rather dishonest.

There were plenty of valid reasons people have to protest against Morsi, (mismanagement of the economy, increasing authoritarianism etc) and if he was removed via democratic means, I would have no issues with that, but instead there was a violent coup, and they even ignored chances to end the mess peacefully as well:

How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut

Edz87 wrote: »

Maybe Morsi had evidence of UFO's and wanted to release it and America said no.

Typical nonsense from someone who can't back up something they said.

Nodin

Edz87 wrote: »

Why did the army take over? Why did millions of people protest against Morsi in the first place?

Are my claims that it was because he was trying to implement a repressive regime based on religion totally wrong? That's the way it looks to me but who knows for sure though.

Maybe Morsi had evidence of UFO's and wanted to release it and America said no.

Nobody questioned that. You might address what you actually stated and were asked to provide sources for....

wes

I am on my phone and cant post links, I will when I get home dont worry.

wes wrote: »

Typical nonsense from someone who can't back up something they said.

Can you provide a link to refute my claim please?

Nodin

Edz87 wrote: »

I am on my phone and cant post links, I will when I get home dont worry.




Can you provide a link to refute my claim please?

...you can't prove a negative, hence the request for sources etc.

I think my point is that we don't know for sure what is happening regardless of our opinion, hence using an abstract example.. Of course its not aliens but it could be...

Of course I don't condone indiscriminate killing of protesters by the army, that's awful and yes it should be done democratically but its their first shot at it, there are bound to be problems.


Its a good link I have too, it's from The Guardian!

Just wait!

suicide_circus

When I was a teen the only beating I took was self inflicted and extremely localised. Kids today, with their values and agendas....

Galwayguy35

You would think the previous muslim government did nothing wrong at all, and the muslims themselves are just as bad as anyone else.

They killed about 20 policemen a few days ago and lined their bodies by the side of the road.

As for the Egyptian family, they should have got out the minute the trouble started and not join in protests about a country their parents wanted to leave behind.

Boombastic

So have we figured out yet what a 17 year old was doing protesting a government in a foreign country and why his parents allowed him to go?

bumper234

Boombastic wrote: »

So have we figured out yet what a 17 year old was doing protesting a government in a foreign country and why his parents allowed him to go?

He was there before the protests started or any travel advisory was issued. But i am sure you already know this but you're just bored and hoping to get reactions for asking the same question.

brimal

studiorat wrote: »

The father of the family in question is the general secretary for the European Council for Fatwa and Research. The ECFR is a mouthpiece for the Egyptian theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi who also happens to be prominent in the Muslim Brotherhood who according to himself consider him as their mufti.

They were working with a group called " Egyptians Abroad for Democracy" which on the day they launched openly declared their support for Morsi and the MB. To think they were just passing through and happened to get caught up by accident is either a useful idiot or naive in the extreme.

Very interesting.

fsfg

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

You would think the previous muslim government did nothing wrong at all, and the muslims themselves are just as bad as anyone else.

They killed about 20 policemen a few days ago and lined their bodies by the side of the road.

As for the Egyptian family, they should have got out the minute the trouble started and not join in protests about a country their parents wanted to leave behind.

Who are you to tell them what they should do?

Swamp3

Just saw the picture of the 4 of them. He's 17? Is that a Nigerian 17???
He looks older than that.

Boombastic

bumper234 wrote: »

He was there before the protests started or any travel advisory was issued. But i am sure you already know this but you're just bored and hoping to get reactions for asking the same question.

He went on holidays to the site of the protest did he?

bumper234

Boombastic wrote: »

He went on holidays to the site of the protest did he?

You know he didn't you know there was no protests when he entered the country but again you make sensationalist remarks hoping to get a reaction.

Boombastic

bumper234 wrote: »

You know he didn't you know there was no protests when he entered the country but again you make sensationalist remarks hoping to get a reaction.

Why are you ignoring that they admitted attending the protest and trying to make out they were sight seeing, turned around and the protest was behind them?