Ibrahim Halawa acquited(mod warning in op-Heed it)

Galwayguy35

end of the road wrote: »

sure, but i think we can safely say ibriham isn't guilty of anything apart from being misguided in going to a country where the military were murdering left right and centre.

Can we?

pablo128

wes wrote: »

Ok, so your being purposefully obtuse then it seems. You said the following:



So if the Muslim Brotherhood are responsible, then they must have ordered it, right?

For example if I were to claim that the US republican party set about engaging in White supremacist terrorism, then it would be fair for someone to ask me, if they ordered there members to do so.

It seems you are being deliberately obtuse and are not posting in good faith imo.

Would you ever use your brain. MB supporters were carrying out these acts and the government turned a blind eye.

K.Flyer

Plenty of results if you google Muslim Brotherhood Burn Coptic Churches.

One example..

Muslim Brotherhood Burn Coptic Churches

Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority has become a favorite target for Muslim Brotherhood supporters and other radical Islamists across the country in the wake of the military’s decision to clear supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi from their Cairo sit-ins this morning.

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

The second to last para in the quote above is from Brookings Institute analysis of the MB and why the US, legally, can't designate them as a terrorist organisation......their analysis suggests the MB are behind some of the violence directed towards the Copts.

.....and there's this from Foreign Policy

The Cynical Conspiracy War on Egypt’s Christians


Maybe they don't advocate, directly, violence against this community......but neither do they seem argue in support of letting them get on with their lives in peace?

So how about saying that they are fanning the flames of hatred, as opposed to claiming there directly engaged in the attacks? Why is it so hard for some people to say that?

Again, I go back to my example about the US republican party, if I were to talk about them the same way people are talking about Muslim Brotherhood, I would be right called out on it.

The double standards people on here have in regards to evidence is imo astonishing.

Halawa is guilty, regardless of not being convicted, and apparently the lack of evidence of his guilt doesn't mean anything.

Look the Muslim Brotherhood are awful, but I fail to see how there any worse than the US republican party whose leader fans the flames of hatred, openly daily on twitter of all places.

pablo128

wes wrote: »

Look the Muslim Brotherhood are awful, but I fail to see how there any worse than the US republican party whose leader fans the flames of hatred, openly daily on twitter of all places.

HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!:pac:

Nice try.

wes

pablo128 wrote: »

Would you ever use your brain. MB supporters were carrying out these acts and the government turned a blind eye.

So you move the goal posts now. The attacks on Coptic Christians pre and post date the Morsi government btw.

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

So how about saying that they are fanning the flames of hatred, as opposed to claiming there directly engaged in the attacks? Why is it so hard for some people to say that?

Again, I go back to my example about the US republican party, if I were to talk about them the same way people are talking about Muslim Brotherhood, I would be right called out on it.

The double standards people on here have in regards to evidence is imo astonishing.

Halawa is guilty, regardless of not being convicted, and apparently the lack of evidence of his guilt doesn't mean anything.

Look the Muslim Brotherhood are awful, but I fail to see how there any worse than the US republican party whose leader fans the flames of hatred, openly daily on twitter of all places.

Well, for a start I never said they were directly engaged in attacks, so you can wind yer neck in on that point.

And if the MB are as awful as you claim, do you think Halawa was right to be offering them any kind of support? Surely, if they're that awful the protest should be against them, not for them?

Or is their "awfulness" ok, as some seem to think, because they were democratically elected?

wes

pablo128 wrote: »

HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!:pac:

Nice try.

Coming from someone who can't prove a single thing you claim, that is a bit rich. People are guilty, because pablo128 says so. The lack of evidence, doesn't mean there not guilty according to you. Your having a laugh at this point.

pablo128

wes wrote: »

Coming from someone who can't prove a single thing you claim, that is a bit rich. People are guilty, because pablo128 says so. The lack of evidence, doesn't mean there not guilty according to you. Your having a laugh at this point.

According to 'wes', Ibrahim is a grand lad altogether, and MB had no hand, act or part in the persecution of Coptic Christians.

Get out of it.

First Up

pablo128 wrote: »

wes wrote: »

Ok, so your being purposefully obtuse then it seems. You said the following:



So if the Muslim Brotherhood are responsible, then they must have ordered it, right?

For example if I were to claim that the US republican party set about engaging in White supremacist terrorism, then it would be fair for someone to ask me, if they ordered there members to do so.

It seems you are being deliberately obtuse and are not posting in good faith imo.

Would you ever use your brain. MB supporters were carrying out these acts and the government turned a blind eye.

GAA supporters joined the IRA.  Therefore.....

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, for a start I never said they were directly engaged in attacks, so you can wind yer neck in on that point.

The post I replied did, and you replied to me. So hence why I said what I said. Seemed to me that you were defending the other posters position.

Jawgap wrote: »

And if the MB are as awful as you claim, do you think Halawa was right to be offering them any kind of support? Surely, if they're that awful the protest should be against them, not for them?

Or is there awfulness ok, as some seem to think, because they were democratically elected?

So you would support the arrest of alt right boards.ie posters, then? Right? There awful too. So it would be ok to arrest them, surely right?

If Halawa supports the Muslims Brotherhood, then yeah he is awful, but that doesn't mean he deserves prison for 4 years, and people claiming he is guilty of this that or other, when there is 0 evidence.

end of the road

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Can we?

we can, yes. 100%

Captain Obvious

atticu wrote: »

So...
We know thus young fella has an Egyptian passport.
We know that he used his Egyptian passport to get into Egypt.

He needs to let us know why.

We know that Ireland should have stayed out of the internal affairs of a sovereign state, but didn't (see above about the passport).

I can't think of a reason a person with dual citizenship wouldn't use the passport of the country they are traveling to.

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

The post I replied did, and you replied to me. So hence why I said what I said.



So you would support the arrest of alt right boards.ie posters, then? Right? There awful too. So it would be ok to arrest them, surely right?

If Halawa supports the Muslims Brotherhood, then yeah he is awful, but that doesn't mean he deserves prison for 4 years, and people claiming he is guilty of this that or other, when there is 0 evidence.

If they were considered to be engaged in incitement in Ireland, I'd fully support their right to a trial in front of an Irish court......but correct if I'm wrong churches aren't being burned in Ireland in the way they are in Egypt? We have no minority alleging physical persecution at the hands of the government......as the Copts were when the MB we're in power......or do you only accept the word of certain Egyptians when it comes to guilt and innocence?

.....and no he didn't deserve 4 years in prison for effectively being a stupid teenager......but if your going to travel and play big boys' games then you should be prepared for big boys rules......

quintana76

wes wrote: »

The post I replied did, and you replied to me. So hence why I said what I said. Seemed to me that you were defending the other posters position.



So you would support the arrest of alt right boards.ie posters, then? Right? There awful too. So it would be ok to arrest them, surely right?

If Halawa supports the Muslims Brotherhood, then yeah he is awful, but that doesn't mean he deserves prison for 4 years, and people claiming he is guilty of this that or other, when there is 0 evidence.

Doesn't deserve to be feted either.

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

If they were considered to be engaged in incitement in Ireland, I'd fully support their right to a trial in front of an Irish court......but correct if I'm wrong churches aren't being burned in Ireland in the way they are in Egypt? We have no minority alleging physical persecution at the hands of the government......as the Copts were when the MB we're in power......or do you only accept the word of certain Egyptians when it comes to guilt and innocence?

Those attacks against Copts pre and post date the Muslim brotherhood government. You only seem to be concerned about attacks against them under the Muslim brotherhood for some reason. Secterian violence against Coptic Christians, was also encouraged by military regime:

Egypt's Coptic Christians face an uncertain future


The army's violent suppression of a Christian protest in Cairo reflects the growing threat to Egypt's Coptic minority

esterday's violence in Cairo marks an ominous development in the story of Egypt's unfinished revolution. It is very bad news for several reasons. First, it demonstrates more starkly than ever the dubious role being played by the army. Eyewitness reports are clear that it was firing by the army, followed by the repeated crushing of unarmed demonstrators by an armoured car, that turned a peaceful demonstration for justice into a violent altercation that left 24 people dead. Twitter and Facebook networks are alive with conspiracy theorists speculating whether this is the army looking for excuses to delay the elections, or just clumsy crowd control by heavy-handed officers, but it marks a more direct face-off between army and demonstrators than we have seen for several months.

Also, I do remember travelers being burnt out of there homes here in Ireland:

Travellers faced threats before home set on fire


Look the Muslim brotherhood, are awful, the guys that replaced them are not different, and are happy to engage in murder and oppression when it suits them.

Best case for those who are against Halawa is that he is supportive of the Muslim brotherhood, best case for his supporters is that he supported a pro-democracy protest.

**EDIT**
Had a look at your link, and it doesn't say what you claim it does. You claim the following:

Jawgap wrote: »

We have no minority alleging physical persecution at the hands of the government......as the Copts were when the MB we're in power......

The Coptic Pope said the following:

"But in reality he did not," said the pope, arguing that Morsi's action "comes under the category of negligence". Police continued to fire teargas into the cathedral precinct after Morsi's phone call – though it is unclear how much control Morsi exerts over security services.

Tawadros also criticised Morsi's decision on Monday to revive a body aimed at promoting religious equality, seeing it as a meaningless gesture. "We want action not words," he said, adding that such committees would not stem an alarming rise in sectarianism.

The strength of Tawadros's words suggested a change in tack from the Coptic leadership, said a leading analyst of Coptic affairs. "What was shocking was the tone of the language," said Dr Vivian Ibrahim, the author of Copts of Egypt, and a fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. "It's also interesting that he called in to a television show. He hasn't used a sermon. He is trying to reach as large an audience as possible."

It is not unprecedented for a pope to criticise the Egyptian state. Tawadros's predecessor, Shenouda III – whom he succeeded last year – began his papacy four decades ago with similarly fiery outbursts against the then dictator Anwar Sadat.

Care to point out where the Coptic Pope alleged physical persecution by the then Muslim Brotherhood government? I don't see such words being used.

Now, having said that, standing by and allowing a sectarian attack to happen, would in my opinion, make the government responsible for those hurt and killed for not stopping it sooner, but the Pope used the term "negligence", and didn't allege "physical persecution" by the government as you claimed that he did.

Still not entirely sure what this has to do with Halawa. There is no evidence, he engaged in any kind of violence.

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

Those attacks against Copts pre and post date the Muslim brotherhood government. You only seem to be concerned about attacks against them under the Muslim brotherhood for some reason. Secterian violence against Coptic Christians, was also encouraged by military regime:



Also, I do remember travelers being burnt out of there homes here in Ireland:

Travellers faced threats before home set on fire


Look the Muslim brotherhood, are awful, the guys that replaced them are not different, and are happy to engage in murder and oppression when it suits them.

Best case for those who are against Halawa is that he is supportive of the Muslim brotherhood, best case for his supporters is that he supported a pro-democracy protest.

**EDIT**
Had a look at your link, and it doesn't say what you claim it does. You claim the following:



The Coptic Pope said the following:


Care to point out where the Coptic Pope alleged physical persecution by the then Muslim Brotherhood government? I don't see such words being used.

Now, having said that, standing by and allowing a sectarian attack to happen, would in my opinion, make the government responsible for those hurt and killed for not stopping it sooner, but the Pope used the term "negligence", and didn't allege "physical persecution" by the government as you claimed that he did.

Still not entirely sure what this has to do with Halawa. There is no evidence, he engaged in any kind of violence.

eh?

The opening paragraph states.....

The head of Egypt's Coptic church has strongly condemned the country's Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, for failing to deal properly with last weekend's sectarian violence that ended with six Christians being killed and the country's largest cathedral besieged by police and armed civilians.

.....which to me suggests the MB were in power when these attacks happened?

....and I'd unreservedly condemn any sectarian violence, from whatever source.....I'm in no way religious, but if people want to practice or profess a faith then they should be able to do so without fear of violence......

.....I would also never support an organisation that even tacitly acquiesced to members or affiliates violently targeting people in the basis of religion (or gender, or political belief etc).....I'd hope others would do the same and protest against such groups......or at the very least not lend any kind of support to them.

EDIT: btw, the link about the travellers indicates the Guards are investigating and were taking the threats seriously, how does that compare to a group being targetted for their religious beliefs and the relevant authorities not acting pro-actively to protect them?

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

eh?

The opening paragraph states.....

.....which to me suggests the MB were in power when these attacks happened?

Yeah, they were in power, I acknowledged that in my post. I take it you were confused about me pointing out that sectarianism in Egypt happened before the Muslim Brotherhood, and continues to this day.

The Muslim Brotherhoods tenure in government was a complete disaster for Egypt. There unwillingness to protect minorities proved there critics completely right. The sad fact is that nothing has changed for Coptic Christians now that they are gone.

Still not entirely sure what any of this has to do with Halawa. I take it, this is some sort of guilt by association thing?

Jawgap wrote: »

EDIT: btw, the link about the travellers indicates the Guards are investigating and were taking the threats seriously, how does that compare to a group brings targetted for their religious beliefs and the relevant authorities not acting pro-actively to protect them?

You know what that was a bad example on my part.

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

Yeah, they were in power, I acknowledged that in my post. I take it you were confused about me pointing out that sectarianism in Egypt happened before the Muslim Brotherhood, and continues to this day.

The Muslim Brotherhoods tenure in government was a complete disaster for Egypt. There unwillingness to protect minorities proved there critics completely right. The sad fact is that nothing has changed for Coptic Christians now that they are gone.

Still not entirely sure what any of this has to do with Halawa. I take it, this is some sort of guilt by association thing?

You know what that was a bad example on my part.

Therefore, do you think Halawa was right to end up protesting in support of them? And, yes, his term of incarceration was completely excessive, but do you think that in supporting such a group he deserved to be labelled a "Prisoner of Conscience"?

Do you think it's right his Dad, as a community and religious leader, seems to be silent when it comes to publicly condemning the MB?

AlekSmart

First Up wrote: »

GAA supporters joined the IRA.  Therefore.....

However those same GAA supporters have been encouraged to join the PSNI from the pages of last Sunday's All Ireland Football Final Programme.surely the most definitive proof that,on this little Christian Island,people have moved rapidly on from their positions of 800 years ago.

I remain unconvinced that the association,so loudly & wholeheartedly supported by the Halawa Children,has even come half-way along that road of modernisation and liberalisation.

It is time to move on from Ibrahim's Cairene adventure and to actively seek his views on which Dublin Imam's viewpoints He believes,carries most weight.

Religious radicalism,depends for the most part on convincing adherents that dictats and utterances made,and remade,over hundreds of years are to be rigidly adhered to in the 21st Century.

We are now in a far better place to seek the Halawa's views on the open,fair and free platforms of liberal Ireland...bring them on I say,bring them on....:)

bajer101

I am starting to sense a shift in the perceived optics in this case. Up until now anyone who so much as mentioned the MB links was shouted down and no one in the media wanted to touch it. Now, there seems to be a reluctant acceptance that there is an obvious MB link and that questions do need to be asked. I think there is now enough of a shift in public opinion that some journalists will feel brave enough to start reporting the truth and to ask the necessary questions.

Mark Humphrys deserves a lot of credit for sticking to his guns and maintaining his civility despite the terrible abuse he has received for simply reporting facts.

dav3

I think people need to get back on track and remember that this is not about the father. This is about Ibrahim Halawa and the accusations and false claims against him.
The blogger has had enough time to provide evidence to back up his claims about muslim brotherhood membership, he's been unable to. The blogger is a lost cause, he's decided he's going down with the ship.

However, it's not too late for everyone else to save themselves. When you deliberately target someone and try to destroy the rest of their life by spreading unproven rumours about them, it's a different ball game.

If you want to go after the muslim brotherhood or the father, go for it. They've already been covered multiple times by the media and our national broadcaster. Unless new evidence relating to them comes to light, feigning shock and consternation at old news is probably all you can do at this stage.

bajer101

dav3 wrote: »

I think people need to get back on track and remember that this is not about the father. This is about Ibrahim Halawa and the accusations and false claims against him.
The blogger has had enough time to provide evidence to back up his claims about muslim brotherhood membership, he's been unable to. The blogger is a lost cause, he's decided he's going down with the ship.

However, it's not too late for everyone else to save themselves. When you deliberately target someone and try to destroy the rest of their life by spreading unproven rumours about them, it's a different ball game.

If you want to go after the muslim brotherhood or the father, go for it. They've already been covered multiple times by the media and our national broadcaster. Unless new evidence relating to them comes to light, feigning shock and consternation at old news is probably all you can do at this stage.

No rebuttal necessary.

Jesus Christ lads

He was imprisoned under a foreign regime

Under their procedures he was kept and eventually let out

It's a two line story.

What are ye doing still crying at each other over it.

end of the road

bajer101 wrote: »

I am starting to sense a shift in the perceived optics in this case. Up until now anyone who so much as mentioned the MB links was shouted down and no one in the media wanted to touch it.

never happened. nobody was "shouted down" simply, those claiming a link between ibriham and the mb were asked to provide evidence of it. they couldn't, they just linked to a blogger.

bajer101 wrote: »

Now, there seems to be a reluctant acceptance that there is an obvious MB link and that questions do need to be asked.

in relation to ibriham, no, because no tangible evidence has been provided to prove it.

bajer101 wrote: »

I think there is now enough of a shift in public opinion that some journalists will feel brave enough to start reporting the truth and to ask the necessary questions.

the journalists all ready asked the questions. i'm sure they will ask them again and again, but unless actual evidence comes to light then asking is all that will happen.

bajer101 wrote: »

Mark Humphrys deserves a lot of credit for sticking to his guns and maintaining his civility despite the terrible abuse he has received for simply reporting facts.

except he wasn't reporting "facts" in relation to ibriham. just allegations and his own opinion, neither of which he can back up.

atticu

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I can't think of a reason a person with dual citizenship wouldn't use the passport of the country they are traveling to.

OK.


You might want to think a bit more.

Look at the trouble this young lad got into by 'not thinking '.

Pero_Bueno

smelly sock wrote: »

It wasnt for an egytian court. One of the most corrupt judicial systems there is.

Sure and remember another thing, and Mark H has said this himself, It's not that people want this guy to be in jail in Egypt, and it's not that we think he is guilty of anything either - but his views are certainly questionable and why does he get so much support from the Irish left ?

Sure set him free, send him back to Ireland, but the amount of praise and support he will get from the media and politicians will be nuts - like he is some sort of hero.

Lets say this - and it's been floated about before on this thread but I'll repeat it.
Say Tommy Flanagan from Galway was in Jail in Alabama for alleged allegiance to the KKK (or inciting hate, whatever is illegal in the states..) and there wasn't much on him, so he should still be released and sent back to Ireland - correct ?

Would he get as much support though from the political left and the media ?


Like F*CK he would!!!

bajer101

Something tells me The Journal won't be first out of the blocks this week with an update on the Halawas case. But other journalists are sharpening their pencils and probably just waiting for him to be officially released before they publish.

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

Therefore, do you think Halawa was right to end up protesting in support of them? And, yes, his term of incarceration was completely excessive, but do you think that in supporting such a group he deserved to be labelled a "Prisoner of Conscience"?

Do you think it's right his Dad, as a community and religious leader, seems to be silent when it comes to publicly condemning the MB?

His father is irrelevant.

As for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, he has much right to do so as the various alt right Trump supporters we have on here. I would personally disagree with him, if those claims we're true, which they don't appear to be.

The fact remains he is technically a prisoner of conscious, albeit one who if he is a Muslim brotherhood supporters I would disagree with. You see supporting free speech mean defending people right to speech, even if you disagree with them. It seems that only applies to people we agree with for a lot of posters, who seems to only support free speech some.of the time.

The fact remains many of the claims against Halawa seem to be untrue.

Snake Plisken

So Daddy could have got his Son out of jail by renouncing the MB in 2013 but he refused!
https://twitter.com/markhumphrys/status/912019497774649344