Attracted my attention the honorable EU statements regarding Egypt in UNHRC latest session according to >> http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un_geneva/press_corner/all_news/news/2014/20140916_item4_en.htm, and despite I join forces with honorable Egyptian MOFA comprehensive well said statement >> http://www.mfa.gov.eg/English/Ministry/News/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?Source=6781921f-3993-444a-859e-ee26ce851de8&newsID=69be5ca2-7132-4733-9bd2-1dc5bc541970, responding to such misunderstandings and false accusations, nevertheless, I would like to highlight and comment on some aspects mentioned. For example in order to bring justice as required and stated in hon. EU statement upon those whom killed and threatened hon. Egyptian Security forces, the death penalty “that hon. EU statement blames Egypt for its application” should be applied or else if EU sees that such penalty should be eliminated I guess it is pointless and aimless for the world to call upon an international coalition to fight back ISIS terrorism and kill them for their devilish and terrorism deeds, f EU suggests that terrorists shouldn’t be paid back by death penalties. Despite that being said, I do still highly believe that deciding appropriate justice measures is the sole responsibility of hon. Egyptian fair Judiciary system and professional judges whom we all respect and trust like other nations respect and trust their judiciary systems.
Moreover, the A/M Egyptian FA statements mentioned explicitly relying on inaccurate information which may be proved by many articles and as an example this is one >> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=cairo+islamists+video+shooting published back in 2013 that entails misinformation between the footage published in the article and the article title, where the second video shows explicitly MB terrorist member firing back at National Guard in 2013, so how come claiming that hon. Egyptian Army are the ones shooting MB’s??
Rabaa and its consequent events post June 30 revolution were not peaceful demonstrations proved by several footages, but what really matters here and is of great interest, what HRW mentioned and admitted explicitly in its Rabaa report preamble >> http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/publications/127942 , quoting as follows “there is also evidence that some protesters used firearms during several of these demonstrations”. Meaning that there is evidence that these demonstrators were armed and not peaceful. Thus, according to US Patriot Act, and based on many of MB and their allies threating footage and statements, Rabaa and ultimately MB “if occurring on the US soil” will be considered terrorists under Article VIII of the aforementioned act which explicitly states the following:” Title VIII alters the definitions of terrorism, and establishes or re-defines rules with which to deal with it. It redefined the term “domestic terrorism” to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity. The definition also encompasses activities that are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or are undertaken “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” while in the jurisdiction of the United States”.
Based on the above, MB’s – if operating and such events occuring in US- will be considered terrorists based on intimidating civilian population and affecting the government’s conduct and policies , which explicitly occurred in Rabaa being armed and not peaceful. Moreover, hope will we be hearing at any time in the near future, EU statements regarding >> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0.
Finally, again terrorism definitions and reactions to it, should not differ globally nor from one country to another. Double measures strengthen and nurture terrorism, does not weak it.