Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 03:55 AM Aug 2013

Juan Cole | Egypt's Waco

Count on Cole for some nuance--

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/18930-egypts-waco

It is always dangerous to try to explain an unpleasant reality, since some inept readers will assume that explanation is justification. All I can say is, it's not.

Those anti-Muslim Brotherhood Egyptians and Arabs who feel little sympathy for the victims typically depict the Brotherhood as a violent cult stockpiling weapons and kidnapping and torturing people. That is, they speak about the sit-ins in Giza and Nasr City the way the Clinton administration spoke of the Waco cult of Branch Davidians, which US law enforcement besieged and attacked in winter of 1993. Just as the Branch Davidians were depicted as closed, cultish, deviant, violent stockpilers of weapons, so that is increasingly the language used about the Muslim Brotherhood by their critics in the region. President Clinton blamed them for the fires that killed members during the FBI assault, including children. I should underline that the Muslim Brotherhood is a major group in Egypt and not in fact analogous to a small cult like the Branch Davidians. I'm just talking about the attitude to them among the military, the old Mubarak elite and even the Rebellion or Tamarrud youth spokespeople, who led the effort to unseat Muhammad Morsi.

These observers are struck not by the body count but by what they call the clear evidence of weapons stockpiles at the sit-ins.

It is true that on Wednesday and Thursday, Muslim Brotherhood cadres did deploy firearms against the police, killing some 50 of them. There was a report of the Brotherhood actually using mortar rounds against a police station in the upper Egyptian city of Asyut. Euronews reports that Brotherhood attackers took over the governorate offices of Giza with firearms and then burned it (see also RT:

Brotherhood cadres have also burned down at least 12 Coptic Christian churches and attacked 28 others in the past two days, as well as shooting dead at least 3 random Christians. They blame the Copts for supporting the coup against Morsi, though the Copts as a minority of 10% of the population are powerless and hardly conducted the coup.

But such violence (inexcusable as it is, especially toward innocent Christians) is an outcome of the coup and of the dispersal of their protests, and was not typical of the movement in the past 3 decades.

According to opinion polling, some 57% of Egyptians either felt that the Brotherhood protesters at the sit-ins were terrorists or included terrorists among them. Only about a fifth sympathized with them. Nearly two-thirds wanted the sit-ins broken up "immediately" (though they mostly preferred it be done "peacefully." These findings are shocking, since the mainstream of the Muslim Brotherhood gave up violence in the 1970s and has been participating in parliamentary elections (even though until 2011 they were known to be rigged) since them. Moreover, I suspect that these attitudes stem from the past year of Brotherhood rule, since Gallup found that in early 2012 some 60% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the Brotherhood, which fell to 19% in early June, 2013. Morsi's violent crushing of protests against his constitutional decree of November, 2012 putting himself above the law, including the alleged deployment of Brotherhood paramilitary against the New Left youth crowds, seems to have been a major turning point in shaping images of the movement.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Juan Cole | Egypt's Waco (Original Post) eridani Aug 2013 OP
He can say it's not justification all he wants. It is. Scootaloo Aug 2013 #1
He's not saying "they had it coming". He's explaining why there's not a ton of outrage on the street Pretzel_Warrior Aug 2013 #2
violence begets violence cali Aug 2013 #3
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
1. He can say it's not justification all he wants. It is.
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 03:59 AM
Aug 2013

When you start out with "I'm not justifying anything, and anyone who thinks so is fucking stupid, BUUUUUUT..." your readers immediately realize that they're about to read a justification for something.



Doesn't matter how many platitudes you make on how "unhappy" (to use a fellow DU'ers harshest rhetoric of this) about the violence... if you're going to add on "...but they had it coming" you're justifying.
 

Pretzel_Warrior

(8,361 posts)
2. He's not saying "they had it coming". He's explaining why there's not a ton of outrage on the street
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 04:20 AM
Aug 2013

by average Egyptians about what the military is doing to crack down on these sit ins.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
3. violence begets violence
Sat Aug 17, 2013, 06:48 AM
Aug 2013

When the military decided to violently break up the sit ins, this cycle of violence was set off and will be very hard to stop

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Juan Cole »