Irish Family In Cairo (READ OP BEFORE POSTING)

danniemcq

Right lads and lasses,

The last thread is no more, in an effort to keep the discussion going we are introducing some rules like we did with the Peru drug case.

No attacking the poster. Be it snide comments, references or flat out name calling.

Please remember that religion =/= race. I cannot stress this enough,

Please don't argue facts.

• They are Irish citizens
• The Irish government is involved and trying to get more information
• They travelled over before the last uprising.
• They are currently being held and the charges include "murder, arson, belonging to an armed gang and possession of arms and explosives."

What is still unknown is

• Did they use Irish passports?
• Where exactly they are being held?
• Are they being treated well?

All other information is either speculation in the paper or their family telling their side of the story.

This is the only warning that will be given in this thread.

justanotherone

Sorry, but could you please clarify the statement

" Please remember that religion =/= race "

Boombastic

• They are Irish citizens
• The Irish government is involved and trying to get more information
• They travelled over before the last uprising but willingly attended the protests as they felt strongly enough about the issue
• They are currently being held and the charges include "murder, arson, belonging to an armed gang and possession of arms and explosives."
• One of them is a minor

Boombastic

^^Race does not equal religion


religion does not equal race

danniemcq

justanotherone wrote: »

Sorry, but could you please clarify the statement

" Please remember that religion =/= race "

Race is each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. For example ethnicity or skin colour.

Religion is a collection of belief systems and practices that may relate humanity to spirituality. Religion is intended to give meaning to life along with solving the origins of the universe.

In the previous thread there appeared to be some confusion. Refering to Muslims as a race is the same as refering to Catholics as a race. Same goes for comments such as they look like Muslims.

justanotherone

danniemcq wrote: »

Please don't argue facts.

• They are currently being held and the charges include "murder, arson, belonging to an armed gang and possession of arms and explosives."

I am not sure that is a " fact ".

It appears to be attributed to the sister in Dublin, Nosayba Halawa, who previously gave us the " Irish teen beaten to hell " story, which turned out to have no foundation.

danniemcq

justanotherone wrote: »

I am not sure that is a " fact ".

It appears to be attributed to the sister in Dublin, Nosayba Halawa, who previously gave us the " Irish teen beaten to hell " story, which turned out to have no foundation.

I'm basing this on what their lawyer has said. Despite it mentioning media reports the fact their lawyer is saying it gives it some credability.

The lawyer told them about reports in the Egyptian media that they face charges including murder, arson, belonging to an armed gang and possession of arms and explosives.

If someone can get a better source of their current situation please let me know.

partyatmygaff

danniemcq wrote: »

I'm basing this on what their lawyer has said. Despite it mentioning media reports the fact their lawyer is saying it gives it some credability.

The MB and its supporters are proven liars. As for lawyers, they're not exactly known for their unfailing honesty.

Just like the completely baseless "Irish teenager being beaten to hell" spin on the story, it's not a fact until it comes from an independent source.

karma_

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The MB and its supporters are proven liars. As for lawyers, they're not exactly known for their unfailing honesty.

Just like the completely baseless "Irish teenager being beaten to hell" spin on the story, it's not a fact until it comes from an independent source.

As opposed to the military who just ousted a democratically elected government? You believe them?

justanotherone

Dear Moderator. I know it is slightly off topic, but please could you clarify what you mean by " Religion =/= Race "

If that means that I think it means, I despair.

Religion does not equal Race.

Race is a biological, genetic event. Skin colour and physical features are pre-determined by a set of genetic events. There is no choice in race.

Religion is a matter of choice. Nobody is actually born of a particular religion, regardless of what they may be told. People always have free will and conciousness. Religion is a choice. A difficult one in parts of the world where religious lunatics and fanatics hold reign. But a choice nonetheless.

By suggesting Relgion =/= Race, it then gives excuses to the behaviour of the followers of that religion in that they had " no choice " in their beliefs or their subsequent behavior, and down that path is trouble.

Boombastic

Means Of Escape

Lets quantify this with a question I placed earlier

If this family were in Zimbabwe with banners calling for the removal of Mugabe or in Dubai shouting for the ousting of Shiek Mohammed and were jailed ,would as many people be as surprised or shocked?

Would one expect that they would be beaten in custody or treated well?

Would anyone expect anything but a rifle butt in the jaw if they protested in Zimbabwe?

returnNull

justanotherone wrote: »

Dear Moderator. I know it is slightly off topic, but please could you clarify what you mean by " Religion =/= Race "

If that means that I think it means, I despair.
.................

By suggesting Relgion =/= Race, it then gives excuses to the behaviour of the followers of that religion in that they had " no choice " in their beliefs or their subsequent behavior, and down that path is trouble.

wha dafuq does your post mean??

Its not that hard to understand.Its bad logic and is used often in argruments.

Bombastic already explained it to you....

I Heart Internet

justanotherone wrote: »

Dear Moderator. I know it is slightly off topic, but please could you clarify what you mean by " Religion =/= Race "

Religion does not equal Race.

That's what it means.

"Religion =/= Race" =/= "Religion = Race"

Sir Humphrey Appleby

4 Irish citizens being held by a military junta for protesting against said juntas recent coup.
Well if they were there before the coup happened then in their place I would have left immediately, that said the military junta has committed numerous atrocities since it seized power, so the government needs to do all in its power to get them back to Ireland.

justanotherone

returnNull wrote: »

wha dafuq does your post mean??

Its not that hard to understand.Its bad logic and is used often in argruments.

Bombastic already explained it to you....

I'm more concerned about what your post means.

Religion does not equal Race, and I imagine the OP had a rather simplistic definition in terms of how people can be examined in terms of their social grouping.

Race is a fixed and pre-determined state of being, which begins at our creation and continues until our death. Race is a genetic definition. There is nothing we can do to change it. We simply live with it. To be as short as possible, you will be born White, Black, Asian Subcontinental or Chinese and there is nothing whatsoever you can do to change that. Which is why "Racism" is a matter of concern.

Religion however, is not fixed and not pre-determined. Religion is a choice. You are not forced to be of any religion. At any point in your life you can choose to join a religion, leave a religion, believe a religion, or consider a religion fake and fraudulent. You can change it. So it does not equal Race.

Religions which hide behind " Race " and " Racism ", do so, because, when examined, questioned, criticised and held to account, and find themselves lacking or exposed, and cannot offer a credible defence, scream the " Racism " card to silence any inconvenient truths.

Boombastic

justanotherone wrote: »

..............................

Religions which hide behind " Race " and " Racism ", do so, because, when examined, questioned, criticised and held to account, and find themselves lacking or exposed, and cannot offer a credible defence, scream the " Racism " card to silence any inconvenient truths.

Very good point.

Means Of Escape

It is widely accepted that there are countries that have had rulers who rule with an iron fist with the backing of the army.
Regardless of how virtuous a cause a dissident group might have it is unlikely that their wishes will be heard let alone enforced unless the troops swing their way .
How anyone can expect that Western models of protest can in anyway be applied in these countries is beyond belief
Ones religion or nationality is irrelevant if you are a protester. You or your group will be seen as a threat ,by virtue of association ,to the sovereignty of the state akin to treason and it is not something that the rulers will tolerate.
You could be throwing flowers and signing peace chants at the wall of soldiers and you will still be rounded as though you fired a rock.
We do not know whether they entered the country on their Egyptian passports or Irish.
We do not know whether they were red flagged by the authorities as soon as they arrived.
One could argue that the wild claims of their treatment is being used to place pressure on international groups to put a foot to the neck of the government.
Again why are people so shocked given the country is sadly moving towards a civil war.

I Heart Internet

justanotherone wrote: »

I'm more concerned about what your post means.

Religion does not equal Race, and I imagine the OP had a rather simplistic definition in terms of how people can be examined in terms of their social grouping.

:eek:

Did you read my response? No one is saying that religion equals race. They are saying the exact opposite!

justanotherone

OK, thanks.

But my reply was to returnNull.

I Heart Internet

justanotherone wrote: »

OK, thanks.

But my reply was to returnNull.

I understand that, but it was based on a misunderstanding of what =/= meant.

Glad that's cleared up.

I hope the family get home safely and I really, really hope that Eqypt can avoid a civil war.

partyatmygaff

karma_ wrote: »

As opposed to the military who just ousted a democratically elected government? You believe them?

First things first, they removed that government on foot of the millions who protested against him and the growing public resentment towards them that preceded the protests. I don't know where people get the idea that the military got fed up of them and decided to remove them on a whim. I'd imagine that sort of confusion would happen if you only started following the story last week or so.

As for who I believe, i'd sooner believe the military's promise to hold re-elections (as they did before) than believe anything the Muslim Brotherhood says, they're proven liars.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

partyatmygaff wrote: »

First things first, they removed that government on foot of the millions who protested against him and the growing public resentment towards them that preceded the protests. I don't know where people get the idea that the military got fed up of them and decided to remove them on a whim. I'd imagine that sort of confusion would happen if you only started following the story last week or so.

As for who I believe, i'd sooner believe the military's promise to hold re-elections (as they did before) than believe anything the Muslim Brotherhood says, they're proven liars.

Are you disputing that the MB won the last democratic election? Or are you suggesting that every country with an elected but unpopular government be subject to a military coup!
As for the military, literally thousands have died at their hands since the coup, but I suppose that makes anything they say more believable in your eyes.

Means Of Escape

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Are you disputing that the MB won the last democratic election? Or are you suggesting that every country with an elected but unpopular government be subject to a military coup!
As for the military, literally thousands have died at their hands since the coup, but I suppose that makes anything they say more believable in your eyes.

Do you accept that Mugabe won the election void of bribery and threats?
You cant be any the wiser as to whether the MB victory was bone fide or not .
Books are easily cooked.
Makes the idea of democracy a farce in some cases.
One could take a large number of state elections with a pinch of salt.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

me bolly wrote: »

Do you accept that Mugabe won the election void of bribery and threats?
You cant be any the wiser as to whether the MB victory was bone fide or not .
Books are easily cooked.
Makes the idea of democracy a farce in some cases.
One could take a large number of state elections with a pinch of salt.

To date nobody, including the military in Egypt, has disputed the veracity of the election result.

Means Of Escape

Leadership change in Egypt only 32 years ago came about by the assassination of Anwar Sadat by the millirary on parade
Amazingly Mubarak who was sitting front row bedside Sadat escaped unscathed.
Rose to power thereafter.
No election just brutal force a common thread in Middle Eastern countries down through the centuries.

Cody Pomeray

partyatmygaff wrote: »

First things first, they removed that government on foot of the millions who protested against him and the growing public resentment towards them that preceded the protests.

While there was public resentment of Morsi, and while there were peaceful protests against him, the fact that the army have basically spent their time slaughtering Egyptians and imposing martial law is hardly a better democratic alternative to Morsi. Come on.

Nodin

justanotherone wrote: »

I'm more concerned about what your post means.

Religion does not equal Race......

That's what the OP said.

Means Of Escape

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

To date nobody, including the military in Egypt, has disputed the veracity of the election result.

And that's why now the very military are attempting to quell the MB protests rather than supporting them .

Means Of Escape

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

While there was public resentment of Morsi, and while there were peaceful protests against him, the fact that the army have basically spent their time slaughtering Egyptians and imposing martial law is hardly a better democratic alternative to Morsi. Come on.

Possibility that MB is now seen as a long term threat to the stability of the already fractured country?

Cody Pomeray

me bolly wrote: »

Possibility that MB is now seen as a long term threat to the stability of the already fractured country?

The MB is a potential threat to the country and the region, but the Army is proving to be the bigger danger.

As bad as the MB are, they're broadly democratic. Aside from violating local and international law, and flouting democracy, the army are setting themselves up as a long term threat to stability by usurping the constitutional order of Egypt, i.e. "whenever politicians are unpopular, we will step in with force". This is the second coup in as many years. This is where the threat to stability and democracy comes from.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

me bolly wrote: »

Possibility that MB is now seen as a long term threat to the stability of the already fractured country?

Seen by whom? The voters that elected them in a free and democratic election?

I Heart Internet

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

While there was public resentment of Morsi, and while there were peaceful protests against him, the fact that the army have basically spent their time slaughtering Egyptians and imposing martial law is hardly a better democratic alternative to Morsi. Come on.

Hear, hear.

A bad politician and a bad government are much better than a military coup and strangle-hold on democracy.

"We're going to ensure you have free and fair elections very soon, just trust us. These will be free and fair and deliver the type of democratic governance you, the Egyptian People deserve, not like that bad, silly, democratically elected governement you had recently."

- The Egyptian Army

Means Of Escape

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Seen by whom? The voters that elected them in a free and democratic election?

Free and democratic election?
I too am confused by your assuredness.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

me bolly wrote: »

Free and democratic election?
I too am confused by your assuredness.

Well if you care to link to one respected organization which disputed the fairness of the last election in Egypt I will happily read it.
Nice deflection though!

Playboy

The MB hijacked the revolution in Egypt. They are an organised political party that has been around since '20's. They have been waiting in the wings for their opportunity and they seized it amongst the turmoil after Mubarak was removed from power.

They won the election for a number of reasons:
1. lack of a coherent and organised party to represent the instigators of the revolution i.e. middle class, educated, disenfranchised youth who wanted a western style democracy and constitution.
2. They took advantage of the large poor, uneducated lower class who are religious. They did this by bribing them with food stuffs and other goods to gain their vote and they also worked with the local mosques to frighten people into voting for them with the message that if they didn’t then they would be sinning and end up in hell.
3. They had funding from some of the more extreme Arab regimes and states to further the cause of Islam in Egypt.

They won the election but were they the government the people of Egypt wanted? No and that was evidenced in the huge turnouts for the protests to remove Morsi from power prior to the army actually doing it. You will find that the army still has a large majority of the popular support in Egypt even in light of their brutal dealings with the MB supporters.

It's easy to criticise from afar but people aren’t cognizant of the reality of the MB regime. Morsi tried to take emergency powers for himself early on into his term, he dismantled the cross party committee which was developing a constitution and instead rushed through an Islamic constitution that didn’t protect the rights of any minority groups and put Islam at the centre of the state. They were also working closely with Hamas and in negotiations to give away large parts of Sinai to them. They were also changing the school curriculum to reflect a more religious and fundamentalist ideology. Cairo for many months leading up to the protests was having power outages that lasted days at a time. Fuel (petrol) was extremely scarce and had become unaffordable and the government was doing little to repair the broken economy and tourist industry.

So while the army are dealing quite brutally with the MB, all isn’t quite what it seems. The brotherhood want civil war, they are driven by an ideology that they will not compromise and it’s an ideology that is at odds with the majority of people in Egypt. The protests are not all peaceful, they have weapons and they have been engaging the army and the police in open warfare. Most people in Egypt want the MB off the streets and they want to be able to get on with their lives and go about repairing their country.

Unfortunately you have people from other countries who think its good idea to fly into the middle of this mess and join in the protests even though they are insulated from the reality of actually having to live there. This Irish family has had plenty of opportunity to remove themselves from danger but they decided to fly out there and put themselves at the centre of it. Now you have to question any parent who would put their children in harm’s way to fight an ideological battle in a country you don’t live in? They don’t deserve to be treated badly but they have put themselves in harm’s way.

Cody Pomeray

Playboy wrote: »

It's easy to criticise from afar but people aren’t cognizant of the reality of the MB regime. Morsi tried to take emergency powers for himself early on into his term, he dismantled the cross party committee which was developing a constitution and instead rushed through an Islamic constitution that didn’t protect the rights of any minority groups and put Islam at the centre of the state.

Nobody is defending Morsi's politics or the MB's ideological position.

If they are, let them come forward and say so!

No, people are criticizing the Army, the coup, and innocent lives being taken.

Can people take a step back here and look at what they're saying

• Morsi makes the constitution immune from legal challenge: Morsi is the bad guy (fair enough), but
• The army suspends the constitution the people voted for 8 months ago, shoots hundreds of civilians: army is the good guy.

Just how far are people willing to go in this inexcusable defence of the Egyptian army regime? It's senseless.

Playboy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

• Morsi makes the constitution immune from legal challenge: Morsi is the bad guy (fair enough), but
• The army suspends the constitution the people voted for 8 months ago, shoots hundreds of civilians: army is the good guy.

Just how far are people willing to go in this inexcusable defence of the Egyptian army regime? It's senseless.

But thats exactly the point, the constitution that was pushed through wasnt the constitution that was voted for. Thats why the first thing the interim government and the army did was get rid of it. People in Egypt dont want a version of an Islamic theocracy in their country. It is an ideological battle and the army has the popular support of most Egyptians. The MB protests are tiny in comparison to the protests to remove Morsi. No one is defending the brutality of the army but to frame the discussion in the way you have done and most of the western media has done is extremely simplisitic and not reflective of whats going on if you actually speak to many egyptians

wes

Playboy wrote: »

3. They had funding from some of the more extreme Arab regimes and states to further the cause of Islam in Egypt.

*AHEM* the military regime are being funded by Saudi Arabia........

You do raise a lot of valid points in regards to the MB, and people were right to protest them, but a violent coup can hardly be described a democratic, or as any kind of solution.

Playboy wrote: »

They were also working closely with Hamas and in negotiations to give away large parts of Sinai to them.

Wow that's news to me. Care to provide a link, as I completed missed that one. Rather strange thing to do, give away large part of the Sinai, and for the worlds media to not report such a major story.

Playboy wrote: »

The brotherhood want civil war,

No thats the army, otherwise, they wouldn't have escalated the violence. The army have done the vast majority of the killing in the past few days. 100s have been killed by the army, and not the Brotherhood.

Playboy wrote: »

The protests are not all peaceful, they have weapons and they have been engaging the army and the police in open warfare.

What is happening in Syria for example is open warfare between 2 sides, that is not the case in Egypt. What we have is one side do the vast vast majority of the killing, and I find it very hard to believe that every media organisation has some how missed open warfare between 2 sides.

I Heart Internet

Playboy wrote: »

The MB hijacked the revolution in Egypt. They are an organised political party that has been around since '20's. They have been waiting in the wings for their opportunity and they seized it amongst the turmoil after Mubarak was removed from power.

They won the election for a number of reasons:

They won it mainly by getting more votes than anyone else.

wes

Hosni's got out!

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak released from prison


Still under house arrest however. Still a major blow for any claims of the military democratic credentials.

Playboy

wes wrote: »

You do raise a lot of valid points in regards to the MB, and people were right to protest them, but a violent coup can hardly be described a democratic, or as any kind of solution.

Its obviously not the optimal solution but its a solution with popular support unfortunately.

wes wrote: »

Wow that's news to me. Care to provide a link, as I completed missed that one. Rather strange thing to do, give away large part of the Sinai, and for the worlds media to not report such a major story.

Dont think it got much traction this side of the world as it had not happened yet but this has been noise coming out of egypt for over a year now given Hamas and the MB's close ties. Speak to Egyptians and this is a major concern from them and one of the drivers for the protests to oust Morsi. Seemingly property laws had been changed and talks were ongoing to extend Gaza into Sinai but obv it woudlnt be under Israeli control. with a quick google this was the best i could find.. sorry its not a better source

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/1/71258/Egypt/Wild-rumours-of-Hamas-interference-in-Egypt-find-a.aspx

wes wrote: »

No thats the army, otherwise, they wouldn't have escalated the violence. The army have done the vast majority of the killing in the past few days. 100s have been killed by the army, and not the Brotherhood.

The last thing the army want is civil war. The might want to put this revolt down quickly and brutally but they do not want a protracted battle with a fundamentalist opponent. Civil War helps achieve the objectives of the MB as without it they are dead and buried as a political power in Egypt.

wes wrote: »

What is happening in Syria for example is open warfare between 2 sides, that is not the case in Egypt. What we have is one side do the vast vast majority of the killing, and I find it very hard to believe that every media organisation has some how missed open warfare between 2 sides.

Because one group is better at killing than the other doesnt mean it isnt open warfare. Many of the protests have been anything but peaceful and the army has consitently claimed they have been openly attacked and shot at before they retaliated. I'm not trying to justify the army's behaviour in any way but the MB and their supporters are not innocent victims in this confrontation. You have to ask yourself how come the army still maintain popular support in the face of the accusations of brutality. Many people believe the MB in Egypt to be a brutal, facist and corrupt organisation and have no sympathy for them. Rightly or wrongly that is the reality.

Cody Pomeray

Playboy wrote: »

But thats exactly the point, the constitution that was pushed through wasnt the constitution that was voted for.

Only one constitution was voted for, and that was the constitution of last December. What's changed in that?

Again - nobody's promoting Mursi's ideology, it's about condemning the army's actions. Just like the Irish-Egyptian siblings were doing.

Playboy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Only one constitution was voted for, and that was the constitution of last December. What's changed in that?

Again - nobody's promoting Mursi's ideology, it's about condemning the army's actions. Just like the Irish-Egyptian siblings were doing.

It was forced through against promises that had been made prior to the MB taking office. There was no referendum to ratify it

Cody Pomeray

Playboy wrote: »

It was forced through against promises that had been made prior to the MB taking office. There was no referendum to ratify it

There was no referendum to ratify what...? promises?

there was a constitutional referendum.... remember?

Playboy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Again - nobody's promoting Mursi's ideology, it's about condemning the army's actions. Just like the Irish-Egyptian siblings were doing.

The Irish family were out there to fight a political battle that wasnt theirs to fight. They went to Egypt prior to any army massacres to support the reinstatement of Morsi.

wes

Playboy wrote: »

Its obviously not the optimal solution but its a solution with popular support unfortunately.

It certainly has some support, but then so does the Brotherhood. Popular support is no substitute for the ballot box, and is just a form of mob rule.

Playboy wrote: »

Dont think it got much traction this side of the world as it had not happened yet but this has been noise coming out of egypt for over a year now given Hamas and the MB's close ties.

The reason it hasn't gotten much traction is because its clearly a fictional claim. People have a habit of making stuff up when they want to stir things up, and this is just one example.

What possible motivation could the MB have for giving up any part of the Sinai to Hamas. Close ties is not enough of a reason at all.

Playboy wrote: »

Speak to Egyptians and this is a major concern from them and one of the drivers for the protests to oust Morsi.

I doubt it was a major concern at all, as its the first I am hearing about this as any kind of reason for the protest for anyone.

Playboy wrote: »

Seemingly property laws had been changed and talks were ongoing to extend Gaza into Sinai but obv it woudlnt be under Israeli control. with a quick google this was the best i could find.. sorry its not a better source

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/1/71258/Egypt/Wild-rumours-of-Hamas-interference-in-Egypt-find-a.aspx

Your own link calls it wild rumours. The claims are clearly not true, and is an example the sort of nonsense people will come to smear there other guy.

Playboy wrote: »

The last thing the army want is civil war.

100s of deaths prove otherwise.

Playboy wrote: »

The might want to put this revolt down quickly and brutally but they do not want a protracted battle with a fundamentalist opponent. Civil War helps achieve the objectives of the MB as without it they are dead and buried as a political power in Egypt.

Except there a political party, that has 0 change of beating a well funded and trained Egyptian army. There is no good reason for the Muslim Brotherhood to want a civil war at all.

Playboy wrote: »

Because one group is better at killing than the other doesnt mean it isnt open warfare.

No, one group has been doing most of the killing while there other has been engaging in protest.

Playboy wrote: »

Many of the protests have been anything but peaceful and the army has consitently claimed they have been openly attacked and shot at before they retaliated.

The armies claims are lies, and they were caught out lieing several times by the media.

Playboy wrote: »

I'm not trying to justify the army's behaviour in any way but the MB and their supporters are not innocent victims in this confrontation.

Except that most of them are innocent victims guilty of only protesting.

Playboy wrote: »

You have to ask yourself how come the army still maintain popular support in the face of the accusations of brutality.

Some people don't give a crap if there opponents are killed.

Playboy wrote: »

Many people believe the MB in Egypt to be a brutal, facist and corrupt organisation and have no sympathy for them. Rightly or wrongly that is the reality.

So you just answered you own questioned, surely people who believe that, have no issues with those people being murdered. TBH, they can't claim to be any better than the Brotherhood considering how clearly blood thirsty the Junta they support is.

wes

Playboy wrote: »

They went to Egypt prior to any army massacres to support the reinstatement of Morsi.

There is no proof of that, and its even addressed in the first post of this thread.

danniemcq wrote: »

Please don't argue facts.

• They are Irish citizens
• The Irish government is involved and trying to get more information
• They travelled over before the last uprising.
• They are currently being held and the charges include "murder, arson, belonging to an armed gang and possession of arms and explosives."

Cody Pomeray

Playboy wrote: »

The Irish family were out there to fight a political battle that wasnt theirs to fight. They went to Egypt prior to any army massacres to support the reinstatement of Morsi.

The sister who is not in Egypt has said they go there every year during summer holidays. Are you saying they go there every year to cause political trouble?

Can you clarify your earlier statement on the constitution?

Nodin

Playboy wrote: »

The Irish family were out there to fight a political battle that wasnt theirs to fight. They went to Egypt prior to any army massacres to support the reinstatement of Morsi.

Afaik they went in June, before he was overthrown.

Playboy

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There was no referendum to ratify what...? promises?

there was a constitutional referendum.... remember?

There was a draft constitution rushed through parliment and put to a vote in controversial cirumstances. There was allegations of vote rigging and a really low turnout with many people not even understanding the content of the constitution. Many people abstained and even in these circumstances the constitution didnt pass in Cairo where the majority of the educated population reside.

The constitution was not one that was reflective of the aspirations of the revolution and was not inclusive as was promised. You have to remember that Egypt does not have any of the institutions of a democracy to afford the protections and governance that we enjoy in western democracies when going through a process such as this. Maybe you didnt see that size of the protests to remove Morsi from power?