Irish Teen Fears Execution in Egypt

gw80

Ah religion, where would we be without it,

Seriously, think about it,

On this issue, even though I detest all religions I think the Irish government should try and help him even if he went over there to protest, not because we are a christian country but because of human and moral rights we try to live by in this country.

Take the moral high ground, if you will.

posts like let him rot or he deserves to die, is just sinking to the same level as the extremists,

It would be a different story if he was fairly tried in a court and proved to have been involved or directly committed serious crimes,

Who knows, maybe he would have a new respect for western ideals and values if we got him back,

metroburgers

His incarceration is quite comparable to the fate of captured prisoners after the 1916 rising. Discuss.

Dyr

Nino Brown wrote: »

As usual, there's more to this story than we're being told. Why do police never actually catch people involved in riots? Isn't it unfortunate that they only ever manage to arrest/assault innocent bystanders who were just minding their own business?

its a long oul way to travel just to be hanging around as an innocent bystander

CruelCoin

OlaChica wrote: »

Even a boycott on tourism or something similar.

I for one will be making my annual scuba diving pilgrimage to the red sea regardless.

The revolutions and riots didn't stop me in previous years, so don't see why this would.

Galwayguy35

metroburgers wrote: »

His incarceration is quite comparable to the fate of captured prisoners after the 1916 rising. Discuss.

It's about as far removed from those events as it's possible to be.

Hitchens

17 years of age is ripe for radicalization, his 'oul lad should have tried to persuade him not to go there

seano12

Live by Shariah die by Shariah?

metroburgers

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's about as far removed from those events as it's possible to be.

Violent revolution, religious justification, overthrow current regime, leaders executed, other prisoners interred indefinitely...

CptMackey

They went over to Egypt for what? Holidays?
Father is involved with some lovely people who are all about sharia law.

So there they are just walking along and hey look a protest. Let's have a look. Oops we got arrested but we are not involved I just partake in sharia law on weekends.

Btw I'm Irish. Help me Ireland.

You made you bed so lie in it .

whirlpool

500 people to have their lives ended because they rioted.

Whoever made that decision should be publicly castrated with blunt tools without anaesthetic and then thrown to semi-hungry lions, who'll eat his lower body now and maybe finish the rest tomorrow, maybe the next day.

The life of one evil monster to save god knows how many poor souls. I'm okay with that.

SeanW

Hitchens wrote: »

17 years of age is ripe for radicalization, his 'oul lad should have tried to persuade him not to go there

Daddy probably radicalised him. Zero sympathy.

Smiles35

CptMackey wrote: »

They went over to Egypt for what? Holidays?
Father is involved with some lovely people who are all about sharia law.

So there they are just walking along and hey look a protest. Let's have a look. Oops we got arrested but we are not involved I just partake in sharia law on weekends.

Btw I'm Irish. Help me Ireland.

You made you bed so lie in it .

He wants too. Wanted to go on hunger strike.

whats the point

whirlpool wrote: »

500 people to have their lives ended because they rioted.

Whoever made that decision should be publicly castrated with blunt tools without anaesthetic and then thrown to semi-hungry lions, who'll eat his lower body now and maybe finish the rest tomorrow, maybe the next day.

The life of one evil monster to save god knows how many poor souls. I'm okay with that.

Hello Nero!!! History classes you as a monster also...

silverbolt

wes wrote: »

What his father is or isn't is surely irrelevant.

Considering the way Islamic families operate using a very strong patriarchal system id say its very relevant. The father would almost certainly have instilled similar ideals as his own into his son.

TimeToShine wrote: »

Disregarding your utter contempt for anything different and grossly sweeping generalizations I'll make a few points.

He's not a grown man yet. His religious views are purely a product of his environment i.e. his parents. How do you know he won't leave Islam when he's older? Maybe he even might begin to develop the same ideology towards religion that you have? I'm not saying this is a good thing but it's a definite possibility. However, by your line of thinking, he was born to Muslims and therefore he deserves to be killed for what he has (or hasn't) done. You presume he went "looking for trouble" and blame him as a person for what his environment and upbringing made him. You essentially want him to pay with his life for what everyone in his life but him has done.

He's still a kid who doesn't have a fecking clue about life.

How do you know he wont go the other way and decide to blow himself and a Dublin bus full of people up? Would you blame him or his upbringing then?

On one hand - hes an irish citizen (and his skin colour doesnt matter a damn he was born here/nationalized here then hes irish) and yes our government should be helping him.

On the other he went over there for good or ill reasons (and it was just a strange coincidence he ended up where he did?) and now hes bleating about how he's irish because it suits him and hes trying (understandably) to get out of it.

Guy:Incognito

Only read the first couple of lines but who is he threatening with the hunger strike and to what end? "I think your going to execute me so I'm going to starve myself to death to force you not too"

Galwayguy35

metroburgers wrote: »

Violent revolution, religious justification, overthrow current regime, leaders executed, other prisoners interred indefinitely...

Hmm, well my history is a bit hazy but I'm fairly sure the people in 1916 didn't go over to another country and start the Rising there, also they were fighting against a foreign power to get them out of our country.

Let Egypt sort out it's own problems, what goes on over there is nothing to do with us, as I said before all he had to do was stay here and he would be fine.

Kinda strange that he went over on holiday and managed to get involved in rioting though.

TimeToShine

silverbolt wrote: »

Considering the way Islamic families operate using a very strong patriarchal system id say its very relevant. The father would almost certainly have instilled similar ideals as his own into his son.





How do you know he wont go the other way and decide to blow himself and a Dublin bus full of people up? Would you blame him or his upbringing then?

On one hand - hes an irish citizen (and his skin colour doesnt matter a damn he was born here/nationalized here then hes irish) and yes our government should be helping him.

On the other he went over there for good or ill reasons (and it was just a strange coincidence he ended up where he did?) and now hes bleating about how he's irish because it suits him and hes trying (understandably) to get out of it.

Your scenario is significantly less likely to happen. The most likely outcome is he just goes about his business like a normal person. Can we just leave it at that?

Also, i'm pretty sure he hasn't been doing much "bleating" from prison over there. You also haven't mentioned where you stand. I don't know why he was over there but my point stands, a 17 year old Irish person shouldn't be condemned to death in a foreign country and have his nation stand idly by. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Dyr

Anyone remember all this hand wringing going on when that walter mitty sap was shot while trying to organise a coup in bolivia?

Smiles35

Bambi wrote: »

Anyone remember all this hand wringing going on when that walter mitty sap was shot while trying to organise a coup in bolivia?

Naw, the handwringing is on the ''other-side'' on this one. ''How can we love a black baby?'' lol

Sunglasses Ron

wes wrote: »

I

Last I checked Al Qaeda actually hate the Muslim Brotherhood for taking part in elections.

It is a bit like the difference between the UDA and the LVF.

At a push the LVF are probably the worst of the two, but it is a pretty fine and irrelevant line.

What his father is or isn't is surely irrelevant.

Hardly.

If a minor commits a crime the level of parental supervision is usually something society tends to scrutinize.

If you have ever chatted to many people from Lancashire or Birmingham you might get the impression that towns filled with native born citizens who harbour extreme Islamist beliefs usually aren't the happiest of places. From the evidence shown thus far it would seem Ireland would be best off rid of this clown and his father, passport or not. I don't seem to recall much PC hand wringing here when John Gilligan was forced to leave the country, what's the difference here? This kid and his father seem to be aligning themselves with ideologies that have killed far more people than Gilligan ever did.

wes

silverbolt wrote: »

Considering the way Islamic families operate using a very strong patriarchal system id say its very relevant. The father would almost certainly have instilled similar ideals as his own into his son.

Oh please, Muslim families are as varied as any other. Its nonsense to suggest that there all the same. So again what his father may or may not be involved in, is irrelevant, unless you can show his son was also involved.

There is 0 proof of this. The fact remain the Muslim Brotherhood, were democratically elected, and protesters who supported them were shot in the street, and strangely that behavior is not considered extreme or radical, or even worth a mention. Instead we have a rather bizarre version of events that ignores inconvenient facts. The Junta were the ones who started killing people in the streets, and not the other guy.

wes

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It is a bit like the difference between the UDA and the LVF.

At a push the LVF are probably the worst of the two, but it is a pretty fine and irrelevant line.

Oh its not irrelevant at all, and the fact remains is that the organizations do not have links to one another. Trying to move the goal posts after the fact doesn't change that inconvenient fact. If you have issues with the Muslim Brotherhood, then by all means point those out. It wouldn't even be that difficult to find some, but instead you make false claims about being linked to Al Qaeda, and when called on it, try to change the goal posts.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Hardly.

Up to you to prove it.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

If a minor commits a crime the level of parental supervision is usually something society tends to scrutinize.

So its a crime to protest against an military coup, who murdered people in the streets? Amazing how that is ignored again and again.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

If you have ever chatted to many people from Lancashire or Birmingham you might get the impression that towns filled with native born citizens who harbour extreme Islamist beliefs usually aren't the happiest of places.

I fail to see what this has to do with the young lad in Egypt at all, other than you assuming he is some kind of extremist.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

From the evidence shown thus far it would seem Ireland would be best off rid of this clown and his father, passport or not.

Guilt by association is not evidence of anything, especially as his father hasn't been found guilty of any crimes.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I don't seem to recall much PC hand wringing here when John Gilligan was forced to leave the country, what's the difference here? This kid and his father seem to be aligning themselves with ideologies that have killed far more people than Gilligan ever did.

So, throw people out of the country on the basis of there beliefs, and not on anything they have done, or are planning to do? Interesting POV. So protesting against a coup is something we should strip citizenship for.

BTW, John Gilligan received a fair trial, the young lad was convicted by a Kangaroo court run by a murderous military Junta, with plenty of blood on there hands, not that seems to matter at all or anything. After, the fact that the military were the largely responsible for the violence in Egypt seems to be ignored for some reason.

Also, should we also strip the citizenship of people who said they agreed with the Egyptian coup, on account of all the people they killed? After all you want to punish people for taught crimes after all.

Smiles35

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

If you have ever chatted to many people from Lancashire or Birmingham you might get the impression that towns filled with native born citizens who harbour extreme Islamist beliefs usually aren't the happiest of places. From the evidence shown thus far it would seem Ireland would be best off rid of this clown and his father, passport or not. I don't seem to recall much PC hand wringing here when John Gilligan was forced to leave the country, what's the difference here? This kid and his father seem to be aligning themselves with ideologies that have killed far more people than Gilligan ever did.

This reads like Dawkins. They are both selling drugs for profit in your book? At least I know where this 'crime' in a civil war thing is coming from.

conorhal

wes wrote: »

Oh its not irrelevant at all, and the fact remains is that the organizations do not have links to one another. Trying to move the goal posts after the fact doesn't change that inconvenient fact. If you have issues with the Muslim Brotherhood, then by all means point those out. It wouldn't even be that difficult to find some, but instead you make false claims about being linked to Al Qaeda, and when called on it, try to change the goal posts.


So its a crime to protest against an military coup, who murdered people in the streets? Amazing how that is ignored again and again.



So, throw people out of the country on the basis of there beliefs, and not on anything they have done, or are planning to do? Interesting POV. So protesting against a coup is something we should strip citizenship for.

BTW, John Gilligan received a fair trial, the young lad was convicted by a Kangaroo court run by a murderous military Junta, with plenty of blood on there hands, not that seems to matter at all or anything. After, the fact that the military were the largely responsible for the violence in Egypt seems to be ignored for some reason.

Also, should we also strip the citizenship of people who said they agreed with the Egyptian coup, on account of all the people they killed? After all you want to punish people for taught crimes after all.

Prior to them getting chucked out there were very large protests against the Muslim Brotherhood's behaviour, their reaction to those protests was no different to the military's. Or are you forgetting that?

The Muslim brotherhood may have been democratically elected, but so was Putin, that doesn't make them any less evil, and the speed at which they were dismantling democracy as soon as they achieved power should tell you all you need to know about the MB and their (sic) 'democratic credentials'. They were very much in the vein of 'one man, one vote, one time'.

I find it laughable that anybody could condsider them as defending democracy any more than it could be said of Putin or any autocrat that attempts to cloak themselves in it's respectability while doing everything to dismantle it at the same time.

wes

conorhal wrote: »

Prior to them getting chucked out there were very large protests against the Muslim Brotherhood's behaviour, their reaction to those protests was no different to the military's. Or are you forgetting that?

I am not forgetting them at all. You will find that Mursi didn't order the military to fire on protesters in the streets, for all his faults, he didn't go on the same kind of murderous rampage that the Junta did.

Secondly, a military coup regardless of protest against the sitting government is hardly part of a democratic process, and then there is the fact that the former government party was banned, no elections have been held yet, and then the current head of the military (who will or has "resigned") running in the elections (after banning there main rival).

Then there is also the fact that even secular opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood have also been arrested (you know some of the people protesting Mursi's admin):

Egypt jails Ahmed Maher and other secular activists

So no I have no forgot the protests, nor have I forgotten that the military have squandered any shred of legitimacy that they may have had, after they not only started murdering protesters in the streets, but once things calmed down even started arresting some of the people who were against Mursi as well.

conorhal wrote: »

The Muslim brotherhood may have been democratically elected, but so was Putin, that doesn't make them any less evil, and the speed at which they were dismantling democracy as soon as they achieved power should tell you all you need to know about the MB and their (sic) 'democratic credentials'. They were very much in the vein of 'one man, one vote, one time'.

Except that the Brotherhood didn't actually manage to do that. Now the military Junta did exactly that, and for some reason you have no issue with it, and then they happily killed protesters, when they weren't on there side. Hardly defenders of democracy.

conorhal wrote: »

I find it laughable that anybody could condsider them as defending democracy any more than it could be said of Putin or any autocrat that attempts to cloak themselves in it's respectability while doing everything to dismantle it at the same time.

I find it amazing that you are so quick to support a murderous military Junta that butchered people in the street, and has arrested the opposition (secular or otherwise) and is now poised to put a military strong man in charge, after the violent over throw of the democratically elected government.

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

Anyone remember all this hand wringing going on when that walter mitty sap was shot while trying to organise a coup in bolivia?

Yep.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055540650

Nodin

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It is a bit like the difference between the UDA and the LVF.

At a push the LVF are probably the worst of the two, but it is a pretty fine and irrelevant line.



Hardly.

If a minor commits a crime the level of parental supervision is usually something society tends to scrutinize.

If you have ever chatted to many people from Lancashire or Birmingham you might get the impression that towns filled with native born citizens who harbour extreme Islamist beliefs usually aren't the happiest of places. From the evidence shown thus far it would seem Ireland would be best off rid of this clown and his father, passport or not. I don't seem to recall much PC hand wringing here when John Gilligan was forced to leave the country, what's the difference here? This kid and his father seem to be aligning themselves with ideologies that have killed far more people than Gilligan ever did.

Well if aligning with ideologies is grounds for deportation ron, the sum of some peoples posts provides far more concrete proof for their departure than anything thus far presented against that lad and his father.

conorhal

wes wrote: »

I am not forgetting them at all. You will find that Mursi didn't order the military to fire on protesters in the streets, for all his faults, he didn't go on the same kind of murderous rampage that the Junta did.

No, he just let some of his unoffical street thugs do the work.

wes wrote: »

Secondly, a military coup regardless of protest against the sitting government is hardly part of a democratic process, and then there is the fact that the former government party was banned, no elections have been held yet, and then the current head of the military (who will or has "resigned") running in the elections (after banning there main rival).

Then there is also the fact that even secular opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood have also been arrested (you know some of the people protesting Mursi's admin):

Egypt jails Ahmed Maher and other secular activists

So no I have no forgot the protests, nor have I forgotten that the military have squandered any shred of legitimacy that they may have had, after they not only started murdering protesters in the streets, but once things calmed down even started arresting some of the people who were against Mursi as well.

I didn't suggest otherwise, things were Sh1t under the militery for Copts and secularists and then they were worse under the MB and now they're just as bad as ever, the lunatic fringe of the MB has just been added to the hit list is all. But lets not pretend things were going to be any better for groups that might garner some western support under MB rule.

wes wrote: »

Except that the Brotherhood didn't actually manage to do that. Now the military Junta did exactly that, and for some reason you have no issue with it, and then they happily killed protesters, when they weren't on there side. Hardly defenders of democracy.

Don't be disingenuous, the didn manage it becuse they got kicked out. Don't kid youself that, had the MB remained in power for another few years that Egypt wouldn't have morphed into a one party theocratic state like Iran, but probably worse.

wes wrote: »

I find it amazing that you are so quick to support a murderous military Junta that butchered people in the street, and has arrested the opposition (secular or otherwise) and is now poised to put a military strong man in charge, after the violent over throw of the democratically elected government.

Again, where did I suggest that I supported the military. The fact of the matter is that I could care less about them, they're a wretched lot, I just consider them less dangerous then the internationalist ambitions of the MB. At lest the militarty junta or more or less contained, a MB ruled Egypt would have brought chaos to the region. I'm just considering the military, in purelty pragmatic terms, the best of a very bad lot.

old_aussie

wes wrote: »

Oh its not irrelevant at all, and the fact remains is that the organizations do not have links to one another. Trying to move the goal posts after the fact doesn't change that inconvenient fact. If you have issues with the Muslim Brotherhood, then by all means point those out. It wouldn't even be that difficult to find some, but instead you make false claims about being linked to Al Qaeda, and when called on it, try to change the goal posts.

.

Maybe type into google "brotherhood links to alqaeda"

Have a full read of the article in the link below,

and Wes you might come up with some answers/truths that you don't seem to like.

e.g.

Then Zawahiri told Morsi: “Rule according to the Sharia of Allah [or “Islamic law”], and we will stand next to you. Know that, from the start, there is no so-called democracy, so get rid of your opposition.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/exposed-the-muslim-brotherhoodal-qaeda-connection/

cruais

My name is URL wrote: »

That's what Irish people once said about guys going off and fighting in WWI

No, there is a difference.

most irish people who fought in ww1 really had no choice. They did it to support their families etc. He was just acting the boll!x.