The Egyptian junta just massacred more people than died in the Syrian gas attacks.

[Comrade Grumpy]

I refer to the 1,000 +/- gunned down in the streets of Cairo.

Not only did we not threaten to attack them, we let the generals keep all the military assistance we give them.

I guess some moral obscenities are more equal than others.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Moral obscenities are in the eye of the beholder

and the US only ever acts in its own self interest. Some civilians are less important than others.

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam War.

All of our wars are nicely wrapped in glory and righteousness (at least going in). That moral high ground would, however, be somewhat firmer is we weren't such merciless hypocrites.

Call me cynical, but I don't for a moment believe this is about saving the poor Syrian children. This is the pretext, manufactured or not, that the West and the Gulf Arabs have been itching for for years. The hegemonic project continues under the cover of humanitarian intervention. Next stop, Tehran.

[AllTooEasy]

11. Wrong; if this was about something other than saving Syrian children...

then the US would have invaded Syria BEFORE the Syrian civil war and taken what we wanted two years ago. It's EXACTLY because this about saving Syrian children that our involment has taken so long (after 100,000 deaths)

[n2doc]

3. But..but.. they didn't use CHEMICAL Weapons!

Use of kinetic, thermal, starvation/thirst, and shock weapons are approved mass murder methods. Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear are not, unless one is a superpower, or gets the approval from one.

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. Funny, they're still just as dead.

[n2doc]

5. As are the 100,000 so far in Syria before the latest events

But Obama drew his line in the sand and has to act or he'll have his manhood revoked. Or something like that.

[warrant46]

21. 100,000 Bush and Cheney killed more than that in Iraq

[joeybee12]

6. Some deaths are more equal than others...

Or more horrific, I guess.

KNR

[treestar]

7. You really can't see the difference there?

Maybe you should consult with international bodies about why they seem to think chemical weapons are worse, and seek to stop and discourage their use, while not worrying as much about bombs or shootings.

Let's just let NK have the bomb then. They haven't killed as many people as have been

:shot in the US
:killed in Syria with chemical weapons
: killed in Afghanistan by drones

Etc.

[Maedhros]

15. Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

After all, Saddam gassed many more of his own people than has Assad.

[treestar]

16. No, why are you changing to a different point?

International bodies worry more about weapons that can kill in large number, chemical and nuclear weapons.

More in numbers may have died by the sword, literally.

But in modern times, there are these very frightening weapons that can kill on a massive scale. Guns can't. Regular bombs can't.

[Maedhros]

18. The same rationale for military intervention is being used in both cases.[n/t]

[CrispyQ]

8. Why can't we start a War on Poverty here at home?

How many people in the US die annually due to poverty, lack of health care, lack of shelter, lack of proper nutrition? Oh, my bad! The elite can't loot the treasury if we spend it on the People.

[Go Vols]

9. +1

[AllTooEasy]

12. Easy answer....

Republicans...and with their pro-sequester, pro-Shutdown, anti-Obamacare, anti-Union, anti-Food Stamps control House, they are winning.

That's why they run the poorest states. Poverty will always exist when the Republicans control anything.

[Grey]

20. You are so right...! nt

[totodeinhere]

23. Because we wouldn't fight a war on poverty with bombs and missiles.

So there is no profit for the war industry in that.

[lastlib]

10. pretty much.....

This comes to mind:

"Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own
This summer I hear the drumming......"

[JRLeft]

13. Syria is all about an oil pipeline.

[TBF]

25. Found some stuff on that -

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitics-of-gas-and-the-syrian-crisis-syrian-opposition-armed-to-thwart-construction-of-iran-iraq-syria-gas-pipeline/5337452

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-190613.html

I was wondering what was going on beyond the old PNAC stuff ...

[AllTooEasy]

14. 100,000 dead Syrians < 1,000 dead Egyptians.

If that's your moral compass....GEEZ

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. This isn't about 100,000 dead Syrians. It's about gas attacks that killed a few hundred.

The US isn't talking about a decisive intervention to overthrow Assad and end the civil war, so the Syrians are going to keep dying.

A few hundred dead Syrians due to gas attacks? Send in the missiles.

A few hundred dead Egyptians gunned down in the streets? Send in the foreign military assistance.

[malaise]

17. But but but

it depends on who serves which agenda....remember there are no friends only interests.

[totodeinhere]

22. Well then lets shoot some missiles at them too.

[indepat]

24. A moral obscenity is what the decider decides is a moral

obscenity. See, this is all so easy.

[Blue_Tires]

26. fwiw, 1,000 +/- are gunned down with shameful regularity in several African nations

and those don't even make the news at all...

[Bake]

27. So when do we attack Egypt?

Either that, or when do we send a few billion $$ to Damascus?

Ah, consistency ...

Bake

[TBF]

28. Quite sure we're already funding that one .... nt

[happyslug]

29. Better concept compare death to GAS in both Countries.

The number killed vary from 36-38, and reports first state the gas was in a building where prisoners tried to escape, and tear gas was used to suppress the attempt:

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/08/18/egypt-police-say-36-dead-islamist-prisoners-died-from-tear-gas/

Another report says the gas was thrown into a Truck, that held all of the prisoners, a truck with the window shut: (August 18, 2013 incident):
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130826/deaths-police-custody-egypt-human-rights-fears

Sorry, the Moslem Brotherhood has maintain a policy of non-violence since 1948, and thus the acts of violence has been either done by the Army or Salafists, who are even to the right of the Moslem Brotherhood but who supported the Coup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist_jihadism

Salafism is related to Wahhabism, the official religion of Saudi Arabia (and of bin Laden and Al Queda):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

The act of violence (including attacks on Christians) seem to come from the Salafists, but that has recently been reduced. The suspicion for the reduction in violence is that the peasants who tend to support both parties have demanded support for the Moslem Brotherhood from the Salafists. Thus, the Salafists have seen the support for them decline, while support for the Moslem Brotherhood increase. Given that 60-70% of Egyptians are either peasants or poor city dwellers (nothing but peasants without land), the fight for support from this population is and has been between the Salafists and the Moslem Brotherhood, and right now the Moslem Brotherhood is winning that fight (and it seems the Moslem Brotherhood had been winning that fight over the last year or so, thus the Salafists support for the coup).

Now, the Salafists in Egypt are supported financially from Saudi Arabia, unlike the Moslem Brotherhood who tends to be self supporting. Thus the Salafist face a dilemma, get the peasants mad at them and support the Coup, or oppose the Coup and get their main source of financail support (Saudi Arabia) mad at them. Thus the turn to attack the Christian Churches, to show the peasants that the Salafist "Knew" who the real enemy is, but that attempt appears to have back fired on the Salafist, for the peasants rejected that the Christians are to blame, instead blaming the Egyptian Army (thus the recent drop in attacks on Christian Churches, the Moslem Brotherhood told the peasants it was bad, and that message was good enough for most of the peasants).

Sorry, while efforts have been made to down play the support for the Moslem Brotherhood, the Coup seems to have increase the support for the Moslem Brotherhood among the bottom 60-70% of the population. The coup AND the efforts being made to suppress the Moslem Brotherhood seems to have some effect on the top 30-40 % of the population also. The only real support for the Military are the top 10% and the closest thing to 100% support is from the top 1% (The top .1% are the Leaders of the Egyptian Military and their fellow members of the elite who own most of Egypt).

Just a comment that Egypt use of Gas in such a tight location and the resulting deaths shows that the Army Generals do have a serious worry about losing control of Egypt. You do NOT get this violent unless you truly fear the people you are beating up. In the US, we have police officers beating up and killing individuals but no whole scale killings, even during Occupy Wallstreet. We have mass movement of people, but not mass arrests. We have a lot of people arrested, but they are either charged with something or released, not held for weeks and months without some sort of hearing.

Yes, a lot of what I wrote can be viewed more as different degrees of repression as opposed to NOT being repression, but the key is in the US we still go through the motion that people arrested in Occupy Wallstreet had rights, something that the Egyptian Military rulers have decided the people who are protesting do NOT have. Thus the deaths shows that the protesters, in the eyes of the rulers of Egypt, have no rights, including the right NOT to be killed.