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

Arsemageddon

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

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!!!

Very poor analogy.

The obvious difference us that the US has not had its government overthrown by the military and the rule of law still applies.

prinzeugen

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.

False claims? If he has nothing to do with the MB then what was he doing on stage at a MB rally?

Cedrus

Now I remember why I jacked Boards a few years back. It's full of racists, thick ****ers and imbeciles who get all of their information from "Social Media".
Anyone who attacks Ibrahim Halawa, implicitly supports the military coup of al Sisi ."the bishops blessed the blueshirts in dun Laoiraoghre" etc.

deco nate

Cedrus wrote: »

Now I remember why I jacked Boards a few years back. It's full of racists, thick ****ers and imbeciles who get all of their information from "Social Media".
Anyone who attacks Ibrahim Halawa, implicitly supports the military coup of al Sisi ."the bishops blessed the blueshirts in dun Laoiraoghre" etc.

But, but you're still posting

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

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.

kind of suggests you're not convinced when you parse your remarks like that.....

.....plus he wasn't supporting free speech, or anything like it - and seen as you've reduced the discussion to trite, Sorkin-esque sound-bites which you really seem not to understand, or you'd have articulated the full Jeffersonian principle and the idea the free speech is not an absolute right and is something that we should guard jealously and use responsibly......


Incidentally, the ol' MB that Halawa was protesting in favour of......do you think they believe in free speech as a right? Do you think, for example, they'd tolerate someone blaspheming or disrespecting the Prophet?

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

kind of suggests you're not convinced when you parse your remarks like that.....

.....plus he wasn't supporting free speech, or anything like it - and seen as you've reduced the discussion to trite, Sorkin-esque sound-bites which you really seem not to understand, or you'd have articulated the full Jeffersonian principle and the idea the free speech is not an absolute right and is something that we should guard jealously and use responsibly......


Incidentally, the ol' MB that Halawa was protesting in favour of......do you think they believe in free speech as a right? Do you think, for example, they'd tolerate someone blaspheming or disrespecting the Prophet?

Any proof that Halawa supports such things? Back to guilt by association again it seems.

Any proof that Halawa said anything at all to support suppression of free speech?

Also, being against a military coup doesn't mean you support the sitting government.

deco nate

wes wrote: »

Any proof that Halawa supports such things? Back to guilt by association again it seems.

Any proof that Halawa said anything at all to support suppression of free speech?

Also, being against a military coup doesn't mean you support the sitting government.

Really? The thread is like a roundabout....

wes

deco nate wrote: »

Really? The thread is like a roundabout....

Is someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to participate?

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

Any proof that Halawa supports such things? Back to guilt by association again it seems.

Any proof that Halawa said anything at all to support suppression of free speech?

Also, being against a military coup doesn't mean you support the sitting government.

He spoke in support of the MB......did he not? Why attend a "Day of Rage" if you don't support those organising it?

......and no, I don't know what his thoughts are on the right to free speech, which is why I asked the question in relation to the MB and not him.......you know, there's also a right to free reading......perhaps exercise it carefully before responding

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

He spoke in support of the MB......did he not? Why attend a "Day of Rage" if you don't support those organising it?

......and no, I don't know what his thoughts are on the right to free speech, which is why I asked the question in relation to the MB and not him.......you know, there's also a right to free reading......perhaps exercise it carefully before responding

I know what you said. There is also a right to not have to answer irrelevant question 😋.

Again, you can be against a coup and not support the sitting government. The military killed a bunch of civilian's during the coup. I can see people being against that.

deco nate

wes wrote: »

Is someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to participate?

No, but you won't make me leave with you're "wash, rinse, repeat" posts.

Pero_Bueno

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Very poor analogy.

The obvious difference us that the US has not had its government overthrown by the military and the rule of law still applies.

You're missing my point, I don't care about local laws here, I'm talking about views and opinions held by individuals and whether this garners so much respect from the media/public.

wes

deco nate wrote: »

No, but you won't make me leave with you're "wash, rinse, repeat" posts.

What ever floats your boat.

deco nate

wes wrote: »

What ever floats your boat.

Keep it up with you're posts, less impact with every one you post...

Will I Am Not

Alt-right Trump supporters :rolleyes:

Omackeral

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Alt-right Trump supporters :rolleyes:

It's gas. The people that spout these type of garbage labels don't live in the real world. They've somehow convinced themselves that we have masses of college US political rallies raging on here but in reality it's just a few jabronis on keyboards.

Jawgap

wes wrote: »

I know what you said. There is also a right to not have to answer irrelevant question ��.

Again, you can be against a coup and not support the sitting government. The military killed a bunch of civilian's during the coup. I can see people being against that.

hmmmmm.......well if he wasn't supporting the government why, when he made his speech, did he quote Morsi?

Also, per the the account I quoted earlier in the thread (quoted below for convenience), it's looks like the MB weren't exactly shy about brutalising the population.....

In June 2012 we got our first elected president, and, in his first year in office, the state's monopoly on violence was broken. Bands of trained Muslim Brotherhood militias and supporters took on protestors and killed them.

In the Ettehadeyya protests in December 2012, the Brotherhood set up an instant torture centre inside the wall of the presidential palace. The interior ministry carried on kidnapping and torturing and killing – and the targets of the Brotherhood and the police were predominantly revolutionary activists and protestors: Mohamed Gaber ("Jika"), Mohamed el‑Guindi, Mohamed el-Shafei, Al-Husseini Abu Deif – and others. But also non-political, sectarian and vigilante killings started to happen: where the efforts of Mubarak, the interior ministry and Scaf to turn people against each other had failed, the Muslim Brotherhood's rule and discourse were succeeding.

.....so the question is, really, why, if the people are your main concern, wouldn't you condemn both sides? Why go to a Day of Rage organised by one group? And why, when you speak, do you deputise the leader into your speech?.......if you don't support one side over the other?

First Up

Both sides of what?  The MB has been part of Egyptian life for 90 years as a social, political and religious movement.  It won half the seats in the 2011 election. In your eyes, is everyone who voted for them a "supporter" and therefore guilty of something?  People are entitled to be annoyed that a legitimately elected government is overthrown by the military, especially when that same military has been brutally enforcing dictatorships for most of the last 60 years.
Your morals are as selective as your extracts from news articles.

Jawgap

First Up wrote: »

Both sides of what?  The MB has been part of Egyptian life for 90 years as a social, political and religious movement.  It won half the seats in the 2011 election. In your eyes, is everyone who voted for them a "supporter" and therefore guilty of something?  People are entitled to be annoyed that a legitimately elected government is overthrown by the military, especially when that same military has been brutally enforcing dictatorships for most of the last 60 years.
Your morals are as selective as your extracts from news articles.

Yes, guilty of supporting a regime for which accounts exist of it brutalising the population.

You seem to think that just because they were democratically elected they were beyond abusing the very people who elected them......democracy is no panacea, it occasionally throws up governments who are every bit as violent and repressive as anything a military has inflicted on a country.

.....and the MB in government in Egypt were not a benign force for good, and pointing that out doesn't make you an enemy of democracy any more than supporting the MB makes you a supporter of democracy.

And my morals are fine......I think there was brutality, abuse and violence practiced by both the MB government and the military......democratic votes should be respected, and governments should guarantee basic rights.....there's two moral absolutes I'd agree with.....and I wouldn't support any regime incapable of respecting such fundamentals, nor would I support a supporter of any such regime, and I'm unclear why Halawa has been portrayed as some kind of secular saint for supporting the MB government, even if it was democratically elected, when its record of government was so utterly awful?

First Up

Where this nonsense about him being a "Secular Saint" or hero come from? Nobody has called him anything like that  He was a 17 year old of Egyptian ethnicity from a politically active family.  He took part in an understandable protest in his family's homeland against military rule and the massacre of unarmed civilians.  He and others were first threatened and then arrested and he spent four years in jail awaiting a trial that was thrown out without any evidence offered against him. 
That is a raw deal in anyone's language and he deserves sympathy for it.  That's all.

Jawgap

First Up wrote: »

Where this nonsense about him being a "Secular Saint" or hero come from? Nobody has called him anything like that  He was a 17 year old of Egyptian ethnicity from a politically active family.  He took part in an understandable protest in his family's homeland against military rule and the massacre of unarmed civilians.  He and others were first threatened and then arrested and he spent four years in jail awaiting a trial that was thrown out without any evidence offered against him. 
That is a raw deal in anyone's language and he deserves sympathy for it.  That's all.

So he hadn't become a cause celebre, prisoner of conscience, celebrity supporters, venerated by sections of the political classes (especially when there are more pressing matters requiring their time) for "for contributions to a noble cause" etc etc?

He's either a "secular saint or a holy fool" to borrow a phrase.

And yes, his treatment was harsh in the extreme and disproportionate, but that doesn't mean he wasn't supporting a regime guilty of repression. And yes he (and his family) deserve sympathy and support, but that shouldn't mean he is beyond being questioned about what he was doing there......if he wants the public's support he should, in my view, answer any reasonable questions and unreservedly condemn violence on all sides in his homeland (your word, not mine).

First Up

Jawgap wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Where this nonsense about him being a "Secular Saint" or hero come from? Nobody has called him anything like that  He was a 17 year old of Egyptian ethnicity from a politically active family.  He took part in an understandable protest in his family's homeland against military rule and the massacre of unarmed civilians.  He and others were first threatened and then arrested and he spent four years in jail awaiting a trial that was thrown out without any evidence offered against him. 
That is a raw deal in anyone's language and he deserves sympathy for it.  That's all.

So he hadn't become a cause celebre, prisoner of conscience, celebrity supporters, venerated by sections of the political classes (especially when there are more pressing matters requiring their time) for "for contributions to a noble cause" etc etc?

He's either a "secular saint or a holy fool" to borrow a phrase.

And yes, his treatment was harsh in the extreme and disproportionate, but that doesn't mean he wasn't supporting a regime guilty of repression. And yes he (and his family) deserve sympathy and support, but that shouldn't mean he is beyond being questioned about what he was doing there......if he wants the public's support he should, in my view, answer any reasonable questions and unreservedly condemn violence on all sides in his homeland (your word, not mine).

I said his family's homeland.
A Cause Celebre is defined as a controversial issue that attracts a lot of public attention so, yes, I'd say this qualifies. 
Four years in jail without trial would leave him close to being eligible for Amnesty International support, especially as all his critics here are throwing at him are his alleged beliefs. 
Can you show me any examples of him being "venerated" or praised for "contributions to a noble cause"?
I've no doubt he will be closely questioned on his eventual return to Ireland. 

wes

Jawgap wrote: »

hmmmmm.......well if he wasn't supporting the government why, when he made his speech, did he quote Morsi?

Also, per the the account I quoted earlier in the thread (quoted below for convenience), it's looks like the MB weren't exactly shy about brutalising the population.....

.....so the question is, really, why, if the people are your main concern, wouldn't you condemn both sides? Why go to a Day of Rage organised by one group? And why, when you speak, do you deputise the leader into your speech?.......if you don't support one side over the other?

He by all accounts was supporting democracy. He may very well have been rather naive in regards the Muslim Brotherhood. All he did was attend a protest and was in prison for 4 years. He is no really in a position to answer any questions. I am sure he will be asked on his return, if he chooses to speak to the media.

Basically, all we know is that he was arrested for attending a protest for 4 years. Is now being released as there is no evidences of any wrong doing on his part.

atticu

wes wrote: »

there is no evidences of any wrong doing on his part.

Do you have anything to back up that claim?

atticu

wes wrote: »

He by all accounts was supporting democracy.

Do you have anything to support your claim?

givyjoe

atticu wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up that claim?

He was acquitted.. Do you understand the meaning of this?

wes

atticu wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up that claim?

I don't need to actually. Those making accusations need to back up there claims.

However, in this case, the fact he is being released, more than backs up my claim.

atticu wrote: »

Do you have anything to support your claim?

Do you not know how to do multiquotes? Whats with the multiple posts?

The words of the sister, back me up.

atticu

givyjoe wrote: »

He was acquitted.. Do you understand the meaning of this?

Yes, I do.
The question is do you?

There is a big difference between no evidence, insufficient evidences, circumstantial evidences, etc.

atticu

wes wrote: »

I don't need to actually. Those making accusations need to back up there claims.

However, in this case, the fact he is being released, more than backs up my claim.



Do you not know how to do multiquotes? Whats with the multiple posts?

The words of the sister, back me up.

So you admit that it is only your opinion, and not fact.
Thank you.

wes

atticu wrote: »

Yes, I do.
The question is do you?

There is a big difference between no evidence, insufficient evidences, circumstantial evidences, etc.

They have one thing in common, in that your can't prove any of the accusations made against Halawa to be true, and the courts in Egypt of all places, have decided to let him go. Basically, your asserting guilt on the thinnest of grounds. The level of straw grasping is astonishing.