Monday, August 19, 2013

Is condemning the loss of innocent lives taking a side?

Misconceptions float around so easily when an Egyptian speaks up against the military's excessive use of force against civilians gathered for a vigil in support of the first democratically elected President of Egypt. The immediate reaction for taking such a stance results in accusations of being affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Mohammed Morsy. Ironically this misconception only exists among some Egyptians, while the rest of the world looks on in horror at the events unfolding before their eyes.

Persuaded by the likes of media outlets sympathetic to the state apparatus (such as Al-Ahram, MENA, and Al-Masry Al-Youm), liberalists choose to believe the Armed Forces are defending their nation against an unstoppable force of "Islamists" who are hijacking the country of its democracy simply because they won elections. The fallacy begins when this propaganda claims that foreign media is misguiding the billions around the world about the "truth" that only Egyptians living in Egypt could only ever know. Obviously this is because Western media choose to sympathize with such a controversial Islamic group such as the Muslim Brotherhood... it makes perfect sense...

It no longer becomes a factor that the condemnation could be the result of evidence revealing the military used live ammunition to kill almost 600 unarmed men, women and children, and injure almost 4000 more. Gun shot wounds have been found penetrating the head and chest of protesters after the snipers pulled their triggers, and the sounds of automatic rifles were heard ringing around the encampment. This deliberate targeting of civilians was not an instinctive reactionary decision made by the ground troops bombarding the sit-in, rather it was the order given after the announcement was made a week prior to disperse the protesters by "all necessary measures". The Armed Forces were so certain of success that they made the bold statement claiming it would only take one hour to remove protesters from Rabaa Al-Adawaya. Such an efficiency could only mean a "necessary" use of force.

Many worldwide listening intently on the updates coming from Cairo found it hard-pressed to come up with an excuse to justify such an act, even when performed against "Islamists".

Hypocrisy starts to ring true amongst some when support for the beloved Armed Forces are chanted in the streets of Tahrir for protection against extremism and "Western influences". This protection, of course, is only be made possible when General Al-Sisi and his troops collect their $1.5 billion annual paycheck that was gifted to them since the Camp David Accords, back when Egypt had forsaken their pride against the occupying forces of Israel.

Ultimately, the argument is no longer a political debate on who has legitimacy, or whether one is pro-Morsy or anti-Morsy, or whether the overthrow of the President was a coup or not. The reality is that the situation in Egypt has rapidly changed from being "politically unstable" to being a "war crime against humanity".

Anyone would be obliged to condemn the situation all the same if the military attacked the liberals.

The military has the sworn responsibility to protect both sides and prevent both sides from escalating their demonstrations into violent clashes, and yet instead they have opted to support one group's rights, and deny the other's.

The incident that has occurred on the streets of Cairo can only ever be described as a massacre, regardless of who the victims supported, and the world now fears the situation will turn into another Syria.

In order to prevent that, Egyptians must condemn the military for it's horrific acts against its own people.
That is the neutral stance. The only side that one should take to condemn the loss of innocent lives is the one in support of humanity.