NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label military coup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military coup. Show all posts

05 April 2021

A Medic at the Myanmar Protests: “We Don’t Count the Dead.” 2APR21

 


THE situation in Myanmar is tragic but to be honest it is difficult to muster sympathy for the Burmese protesting the military coup since aung san suu kiy and the Burmese majority supported the same military who recently committed genocide on the Rohingya in Myanmar and sent over 1 million Rohingya refugees fleeing to Bangladesh. Yet I am again horrified by the brutality of the Burmese military as they savagely respond to pro-democracy demonstrations It is Rev Martin Niemoller's poem come to life again to the horror of the Rakhine, Mon, Karen, Karenni, Kachin, Rohingya and all other minorities in Myanmar. From Mother Jones.

A Medic at the Myanmar Protests: “We Don’t Count the Dead.”

A member of a clandestine group of doctors working with the resistance describes the harrowing situation in Yangon.

“If there’s a head wound and we cannot detect a pulse, we move right away to another patient we might be able to save. We don’t spend time looking at them. It may sound heartless. And at the end of the day, we don’t think back on the deaths. We let it slip by so we can retain our strength for the next day.” 

It’s Thursday night, and I’m talking via an encrypted app to Dr. Thant Moe Nyunt, a thirtysomething general practitioner in Yangon, Myanmar. Since shortly after the military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government on February 1, he has been acting as a medic for opposition protests that have often been met with lethal violence from the junta’s security forces. He has treated demonstrators who have been tear-gassed, struck by rubber bullets, and shot with live ammunition. He has seen limbs nearly severed by bullets. Days ago, he tried to help a protestor with a gaping abdomen wound. That person died in his presence. So did another protester who had been shot in the head. 

Dr. Thant Moe Nyunt—this is a pseudonym—is part of a secret band of doctors working with the resistance, which is known as the CDM (the Civil Disobedience Movement). Though the past few days have been quiet—possibly because a team from CNN was in town—he has spent much of the recent weeks witnessing the brutality of the military regime, as its soldiers assault protesters demanding a return to democracy. 

Members of his outfit monitor the news for information about where demonstrations might occur—or they are informed by organizers—and then they assemble nearby to prepare for conflict that could lead to injuries. They tend not to wear anything that would identify them as medical professionals, believing that the military targets medics. (Occasionally when they attend meetings with protest organizers, they will arrive wearing scrubs to show they are indeed doctors and not spies, but they quickly remove the medical garb.) He knows of one medic who  was fatally shot at a protest in Mandalay and another who was arrested. The military’s animosity toward medical care providers is no secret. Health care workers mounted the first national protests after the coup and helped launch the CDM. He notes that the network of doctors and nurses assisting the protesters is kept secret in part out of concern that doctors with professional or personal links to the military would reveal its members to security forces. 

When soldiers attack demonstrators, Thant Moe Nyunt and the other doctors stay clear of the frontlines and allow others to transport the wounded to them at locations toward the rear of the protests. They treat those they can. “We do the quick work,” Thant Moe Nyunt says. Cleaning cuts. Washing tear gas out of eyes. Applying tourniquets. They send those who need more extensive treatment to specialists stationed further away. “It’s chaotic. Sometimes we can’t finish applying a tourniquet. We have to get people out. It’s chaotic. I cannot describe it more than that.”

Volunteers take the worst cases to hospitals. “If we have intelligence saying there are military people at the government hospitals, we send them to private hospitals,” Thant Moe Nyunt  explains. The security forces, he points out, frequently attempt to intimidate private hospitals so they won’t accept wounded protesters. The soldiers shoot at the hospitals; they harass the personnel. “Sometimes they show up and ask for the protesters at gunpoint,” he says. (Better Burma, a US-based group, has been raising funds for medical supplies used by Thant Moe Nyunt  and other medical professionals assisting the opposition.)

Asked if it takes courage to do what he does, Thant Moe Nyunt says, “I haven’t thought about it that way.” He then recounts that in the first days after the military takeover he was “scared shitless” to join the protests. Every day he would go online and pore over reports of the demonstrations and the government’s brutal response. This caused a paralyzing fear. He did not want to leave his home. Then a friend urged him to stop watching the news and experience the protests directly. 

Overcoming his trepidation, Thant Moe Nyunt started going to the protests. The first ones he attended were free of violence. Then he was at a demonstration that turned violent. Soldiers fired tear gas and stun grenades. He heard gun shots. People started running, but he couldn’t. His legs wouldn’t move. “Fear overtook me,” he says. He dropped to his knees. He looked around and saw people much younger than him—including teenage girls—holding up shields and assisting tear-gassed protesters. “They were so brave,” he says. “I breathed and tried to calm down. I asked them why they were so brave.”

The protesters he approached were supportive and said that he had to build up a resistance to fear, as they had. They told him they were dealing with another emotion: anger. They were so enraged that they wanted to drop their shields and attack the soldiers. But they knew that would be counterproductive. “We have to win the war,” one told him. He realized that their desire for democracy allowed them to keep their emotions in check. If they could do that with anger, he could do it with fear. “They wanted to win this war and not not just this battle,” he says. “So that’s how they find their calmness. And that’s how they have been, out on the street every day, holding the shields, being closest to the danger.”

With each foray to a protest, it became easier for him. “But whenever you see a person shot,” he adds, “it’s not easier.” 

As Thant Moe Nyunt points out in a yet-to-be released interview with the Insight Myanmar podcast, he and his fellow doctors in this clandestine network are accustomed to blood, but it was shocking for them to deal with gunshots. In ordinary times, there is not much gun violence in Yangon. Bullet wounds were new to the medics. “There was a lot of blood everywhere,” he recalls, “nothing like on the operation table or anything that we have ever seen before. But, okay, this is a gunshot. What am I going to do? We actually prepared for this. We have online seminars on how to deal with gunshot wounds. But when you see it in front of your face, like everyone’s shocked, we don’t know what to do. Okay, so stop the bleeding and send them off to a real hospital where they can do actual surgery.”

He is convinced that some soldiers at the protests were aiming at the heads of protesters and shooting to kill. In some instances, the protesters were not allowed to collect the bodies of their fallen comrades. Instead, the military or the police dragged the corpses away: “They dispose of the body. They just burn it without the permission of the family. There’s just a short notification or a phone call to the family: ‘your son or your daughter—now we are going to cremate them.’ Nothing so much as a goodbye or anything.”

In a somber voice coming over an internet connection that keeps dropping, Thant Moe Nyunt tells me that he doesn’t know how many people he has witnessed shot dead by the government troops. Five, maybe 10. Referring to himself and his fellow medics, he says,”We promised we wouldn’t count,” he says. A promise not to tally the dead? He knows that sounds odd, and he explains: “We are seeing deaths every day. We don’t count the dead. We’re trying to move and mobilize people every day. We try to refrain from bringing news of death from one area to another. There are already people counting and keeping track of the deaths. That’s not for us. And some faces of the dead are not even recognizable. We don’t know who they are. We’re focused on helping people. We get lost in that process.”

As the protests have continued, there has been widespread talk within Myanmar of the remnants of the deposed democratic government standing up an armed force that would represent many of the country’s ethnic groups, and Thant Moe Nyunt and other health care workers have discussed how their underground network could become part of that. What structures will be needed? How can trusted channels of communication be established. Much of the country is waiting to see if such an army arises—and to see if the opposition will appoint a defense minister who can create and lead this force. Resistance members across the country are readying themselves for such a development and even contemplating offensive strikes against the junta. “My job now is to be a combat medic,” Thant Moe Nyunt says. “On that day, they will let me know if I am needed. Then I will have to do my job.”

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2021 demands.

Whether you can pitch in $15 or $50, it all adds up to make the reporting you get from us possible.

05 February 2016

Hail to the Hugely Classy Commander-in-Chief 3FEB16

st. lo, france, 1944, ruins, world war II
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF trump, president trump, if anything should scare the hell out of the electorate it is the prospect of trump being commander-in-chief. His adoration of Russia's putin is reminiscent of hitler's alliance of stalin. Their conniving resulted in WW II. trump's militarism and xenophobia, if he is elected, will result in WW III or a military coup in the U.S. by military leaders who would refuse trump's orders to go to war. Either scenario will be disaster for America. This from +Foreign Policy ......

Hail to the Hugely Classy Commander-in-Chief

Hail to the Hugely Classy Commander-in-Chief
The results of the Iowa caucuses notwithstanding, there remains the strong possibility that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination, and contest for the presidency. It’s time, in other words, for all Americans to think seriously about what sort of commander in chief Trump would be. It’s especially important given that, since 9/11, the executive branch has enjoyed tremendous freedom to undertake covert and clandestine operations, as well as expanded military commitments, with little restraint or oversight from Congress, the courts, or the American people.
Campaign slogans and sound bites — which tend to dissolve under the glare of day-to-day Oval Office decision making — are not normally the best evidence to rely on when considering a candidate’s future as a policymaker. But Trump leaves us little choice. He has largely kept hidden who, if anyone, provides him with military advice, preferring to mention anonymous generals, as well as a few specific individuals, like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and retired U.S. Army Col. Jack Jacobs. And his frequent refrain is that he trusts his own judgment, because he is such an exceptionally smart person. Taking him at his word, I recently read just about every one of his speeches or interview excerpts that dealt specifically with military affairs, in an attempt to discern his thinking on five critical areas of U.S. military policy.
First, what sort of force structure would President Trump develop? Here, he consistently warns that the U.S. military is presently “very weak,” has “never been so poorly prepared,” and is steadily “being decimated.” The solution to this troubling diagnosis is to build a military that is “bigger, better, and stronger,” as well as “beyond anything … technologically.… Because you’re getting now, militaries have to be technologically advanced.”
Trump never translates this into specifying how many Joint Strike Fighters he believes the government ought to buy, or what precisely the Army’s target strength should be. (When asked which of the three legs of the nuclear triad he prioritized, he replied, “I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.”) Rather, Trump’s envisioned force structure is “a military so strong, so big, so powerful that nobody messes with us. Nobody, nobody, nobody messes with us.” Without using the concepts specifically, Trump displays tremendous faith in the power of general deterrence and compellence against all current and potential adversaries. They will intuitively sense America’s power and either refrain from undertaking undesirable actions or change their policies once the U.S. military reaches a certain size.
President Trump also pledges to somehow cut defense spending while similarly building up the military, apparently by uncovering heretofore unknown efficiencies: “We can do it for a lot less. They sent a washer from South Carolina to Texas. It cost $997,000, okay?” In 2013, he also backed sequestration, but added that federal budget spending across the board needed to be cut much deeper.
Second, what uses of force would Trump authorize? When asked this in October, he replied, “The Trump doctrine is very simple, Jake. It’s strength. It’s strength. Nobody is going to mess with us.” Yet, on the rare occasions that interviewers pressed him further, he expressed a decidedly non-interventionist philosophy. He claims to have been opposed to the Vietnam War, “yet another disaster for our country, the second Gulf War, a huge mistake because you’re going to destabilize the whole Middle East,” and the 2011 Libya intervention — “look at what we did there — it’s a mess.” He believes that Iraq and Libya would be better off with Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Qaddafi still in power, and that both leaders would have prohibited transnational terrorists from operating within their countries.
Trump takes a much stronger line against North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, noting: “We got to close it down, because he’s getting too close to doing something…. Once he has the transportation system [apparently referring to delivery vehicles], he’s sick enough to use it. So we better get involved.” Whenasked by CBS journalist Scott Pelley, “You would drop a bomb on their nuclear reactor?” (a mission Trump once endorsed), Trump replied, “I would do something.” Here, Trump apparently is unconcerned about the nuclear deterrent possessed by North Korea, or its vast conventional military power that would assuredly be unleashed against South Korea in the case of a U.S.-led preemptive strike on Pyongyang’s nuclear program
Third, what would Trump do about the Islamic State? Despite his expressed, selective opposition to other interventions, he repeatedly supports becoming much more deeply committed militarily in Iraq and Syria. He pledged in September, “I would end ISIS forcefully … you gotta knock ’em out. You gotta knock ’em out,” using another name for the Islamic State. Recently in a campaign video, he said, “We are going to get rid of them, and we are going to get rid of them fast.” This wholly improbable time frame is consistent with hisself-image: “I’m the most military-based and the most militaristic person.”
He offers several, conflicting courses of action for achieving his objective of destroying the Islamic State. Trump supports putting more U.S. troops (without saying how many) on the ground in both Iraq and Syria. One mission that those ground troops would purportedly fulfill is providing humanitarian assistance to displaced Syrians, as he proclaimed, “I love the idea of building a safe zone someplace in Syria.” Inside of this “big, beautiful safe zone,” displaced persons “would be given shelter and food and be taken care of,” and with U.S. troops nearby, “ISIS wouldn’t want anything to do with it.”
Trump also endorses bombing Iraqi oilfields to eliminate one Islamic State source of wealth, declaring in November, “I would bomb the shit out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers … I’d blow up the pipes … I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.” (Regarding the likely opposition from Baghdad he replies, “Who cares? I don’t care about the government of Iraq. They’re corrupt. The government of Iraq is totally corrupt.”) Yet, even while simultaneously bombing the entirety of Iraqi oil infrastructure, Trump has promised (for years) that he will simply “take their oil.” Presumably, he would seek to somehow remove the Islamic State’s oil from Iraq, before authorizing the destruction of its oilfields. Finally, he endorses allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin — “a very bright and talented man” — to undertake this robust mission on behalf of the United States: “Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let ’em get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?”
Fourth, what sort of civil-military relations would characterize Trump’s presidency? Unlike other Republican candidates who vow to listen to their generals, Trump expresses a tremendous self-confidence in his own knowledge of military affairs. As he explained last year to a biographer, “[I] always felt that I was in the military,” and that attending New York Military Academy gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” Trumpwants his senior military advisers to remain in the shadows and refrain from conducting interviews or speaking publicly: “I don’t want generals that talk…. I want generals that have action.” As to what sorts of general and flag officers he would listen to, “I want Gen. George Patton. I want Gen. [Douglas] MacArthur.” Both make for curious choices — Patton is known to have struck soldiers under his command who were likely suffering from PTSD, while MacArthur was effectively fired by President Harry Truman for disobeying orders by championing an expansion of the Korean War into China.
Fifth, what sort of alliance structure would Trump support? He has a long and consistent track record of pledging to rebalance the burden sharing among America’s mutual defense treaty allies. To retain the 50+ year U.S. military presence in South Korea, he would insist that country “pay us a lot of money,” adding “I just ordered 4,000 television sets. They come from South Korea. South Korea is a money machine.… South Korea should pay us and pay us very substantially for protecting them.” Similarly, he would rethink the long-standing commitment to Japan, believing, “If we get attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us. Somehow, that doesn’t sound so fair.” Finally, he declared in August: “I would support NATO,” but contends that in Ukraine, “I’m certainly not a fan of us being against Russia … for Ukraine when Germany is sitting back, you know, accepting all the oil and gas that they can get from Russia.”
It is 
It is difficult to summarize Commander in Chief Trump because most of his policy positions are not coherent, only roughly sketched out, and often contradict each other. He expresses an extremely dark and threatening worldview,believing, for example, that “[Iran is] going to take over parts of the world that you wouldn’t believe. And I think it’s going to lead to nuclear holocaust,” but he simultaneously champions reduced military commitments in most regions, except Iraq, Syria, and North Korea. He is equally a non-interventionist and a humanitarian interventionist, and someone who supports preventive uses of force. He suggests he would build up a bigger and more technologically advanced military, while simultaneously slashing defense spending.
Military officers complain anonymously about the prospects of Trump as commander in chief, as they have for previous candidates and actual presidents, but they can be expected to overwhelmingly follow orders rather than retire in droves. In my encounters with senior officers, most respond to his outrageous comments with a disbelieving eye roll and generally accept that candidates will say anything to get their party’s nomination and eventually elected. Moreover, those who have done multiple tours through the Pentagon recognize that the Office of the Secretary of Defense has far greater influence in the day-to-day operations and morale of the military than the president. Trump has never indicated who he would nominate to run the Pentagon, but he has indicated that he would nominate or appoint business leaders to keep diplomatic posts. (It should be noted that the last full-time business executive to become secretary of defense was Donald Rumsfeld, who was widely loathed by the officer corps.)
Of course, all of Trump’s words might be meaningless once he enters the White House. As he told a cheering crowd in Pella, Iowa, on Jan. 23, “When I’m president, I’m a different person. I can do anything.”

16 August 2013

Egyptian Military Engineers Anti-Muslim Brotherhood Media Campaign, Sways Public Favor to Intervene in Sit-ins 16AUG13

THE bloodshed continues in Egypt, hundreds have been killed by the Egyptian military, journalist have been attacked, detained, beaten and killed. The American government must cut all aid to the military junta until democracy is restored. We may not like the government that was elected, Pres Morsi and the muslim brotherhood could not be considered friends of the U.S., but that is the government the Egyptian people chose in democratic elections. Concerns about the Suez Canal, the flow of oil, our "war on terror" and Egyptian relations with Israel should have nothing to do with the decision mandated by our laws concerning American aid to nations suffering a coup. It will be another example of the Obama administration's hypocrisy if they fail to stop all aid to the Egyptian junta, and the American people will pay once the the junta is removed from power if we do nothing to support democracy in Egypt. From RNN....
Lina Attalah: Egyptian Ministry of Interior uses light presence of firearms to justify aggressive military action that killed more than 500 peaceful sit-ins, as Saudi and Qatari power dynamics play out behind the scenes -   August 16, 13

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item. → Suggest Context Links Here

Bio

Lina Attalah is the founder of Mada Masr. She is the former Managing Editor at Egypt Independent (formerly Al-Masry Al-Youm English Edition). Lina studied journalism at the American University in Cairo. Before joining Egypt Independent, she wrote for Reuters, Cairo Times, the Daily Star, and the Christian Science Monitor, among others. In 2005, she worked as radio producer and campaign coordinator with the BBC World Service Trust in Darfur, Sudan. She also worked as project manager for a number of research-based projects with multimedia outputs around the themes of space, mobility, and intellectual history. Lina is particularly drawn to border areas, where human geography issues of conflict and desire are rampant.

Transcript

Egyptian Military Engineers Anti-Muslim Brotherhood Media Campaign, Sways Public 
Favor to Intervene in Sit-insJESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.
The death toll in Egypt has surpassed 500, and it could rise as violence continues between military forces and supporters of ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. Hundreds of protesters have been killed, along with dozens of security forces, after the military used tear gas and live ammunition to clear two protest encampments housing thousands of members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Take a look at some of these pictures of protesters pushing an armed military vehicle off a bridge. There are some really powerful and tragic images coming out of Egypt, and scenes of thousands waiting for medical care as well. And now reports are emerging that medical facilities treating Muslim Brotherhood supporters are being attacked. The international community has condemned the violence, and the U.S. has canceled a planned joint military exercise with the Egyptian military. But they have refused to cut its $1.3 billion in annual aid to the Egyptian military.
Now joining us to discuss all this is Lina Attalah. Lina is the cofounder of Mada Masr, an Arabic and English online news organization. She's also the former managing editor at Egypt Independent. And she joins us now from Cairo.
Thanks for being with us.
So, Lina, here at The Real News, you know, we try to go beyond the headlines and take a look at what might be happening behind the scenes. There are some saying that this is exactly what the Egyptian military wants, in the sense that they allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to take power after being democratically elected, and they essentially gave them enough rope to hang themselves. They gave them control, allowing them to mismanage the economy, things of that nature. Do you see this as being strategic? Do you see the military actually getting exactly what they want in this situation?
LINA ATTALAH, COFOUNDER, MADA MASR: So, basically I think it's hard to imagine that there was so much orchestration throughout the last couple of years or, you know, year and a half from the side of the military. And this kind of narrative completely removes any incrimination from the Muslim Brotherhood as, you know, the temporary ruling elites or the, you know, short-living ruling elites of Egypt. We have to recognize the fact that there have been a lot of failures from the Brotherhood when they took over. And this is conducive to what we're going through right now. I do believe that there was a point in time when the generals thought that they can basically have some sort of an arrangement with the Brotherhood. I'm sure that there was a point in time when the generals were in agreement with the Brotherhood and there was thinking that this could be a working relationship. And I'm pretty sure that the two sides became at odds when the Brotherhood started to try and control state institutions a lot more on one hand, and on the other, when the military revealed its real interest in being the ultimate institution in control of the state in Egypt. So when those two real ambitions sort of emerged from these two elite institutions, this is when we started having a problem. But thinking from the beginning that this was all orchestrated by the military I think is a little bit far-fetched. We do have to account for the fact that the Brotherhood came to power and had basically no national projects in the shelves to, you know, try to work with it. They were mostly concerned with a power grab. And, you know, this put them at odds with the other institution that is also looking for remaining the most powerful body in the state. So this is what you're looking at, really, a power struggle, a traditional, typical power struggle between two strong parties in the country.
DESVARIEUX: So let's talk about another power struggle that's not really being seen is between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. How is the Qatari-Saudi rivalry being played out in Egypt?
ATTALAH: I mean, it's of course being played out on several levels. There is the funding level. So, for example, the Qataris were much more enthusiastic to support Egypt during the, you know, short-lived rule of Mohamed Morsi, of President Mohamed Morsi, while right now the Saudis have pledged tons of money in the form of loans and grants to the Egyptian government the moment Morsi was ousted. And you could tell that this is the chance for Saudi Arabia to basically, you know, get over what it was--what it was completely concerned about, which is a growing strength of the Muslim Brotherhood around the region. This is a disconcerting phenomenon for the Saudis in the Arab world, and the support that this emerging power getting from Qatar, an ambitious player in the the Gulf area, was also extremely disconcerting for the Saudis. So the Saudis are just feeling that they are perhaps having this moment when they can basically end this Brotherhood phenomenon in the Arab world, which is eventually endangering to its very, you know, status quo. So definitely there is another power struggle on the Gulf level between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that is playing out in the crisis in Egypt right now.
DESVARIEUX: And let's talk about the United States and where they fit into all this, because, like we mentioned, funding, for example, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, they are having a growing amount of influence and are funding the Egyptian military heavily. And there are reports coming out that it has already surpassed the United States in terms of the amount of aid that is provided to Egypt through Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and those Gulf countries and other Gulf countries. Can you talk a little bit about that? How is this going to affect the power dynamic between the United States, Egypt, and those Gulf nations?
ATTALAH: I think the United States right now is still in an in-between position of having had--just settled its relationship with the Brotherhood as the new ruling elite in Egypt, the kind of elite that basically was proving to be a good replacement to the Mubarak rule, which was also a traditional ally for the Americans for decades. And now this quick turning of the events and end--quick turn of the Brotherhood rule is of course causing confusion to the American administration, which is now at odds with the fact that they have to handle another leadership altogether, particularly a military leadership that they have for long been interested in seeing at the margins of politics, as opposed to being on the forefront of politics. So this is really the essence of the relationship between Egypt and America since the David Accords of 1979, namely that the military institutions should just be on the fringes of politics. Its main function should be to just preserve regional security in Egypt and the region. And the fact that this seems to be changing in a radical way is of course causing troubles for the American administration. So right now I think everyone is grappling with what should the final position be, because we're talking not just here about the relationship between Egypt and the United States, but we're also essentially talking about a long-term relationship between the Americans and the Saudis, which is also geared towards preserving regional security in the Middle East, which is basically the ultimate concern for the American administration and for any American administration. So you're yet to see how all these different parties are going to come to terms with each other [incompr.]. Right now, they do not seem to be necessarily allying with the Saudis supporting the post-Morsi regime and the Americans not being quite clear about their final position, but also hinging on rejecting what they have been--increasingly called a military coup against the Morsi regime. But I'm not expecting this position to stay the same for a long time.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the Muslim Brotherhood and their call for just peaceful demonstration. Do you think that they'll stick to this strategy?
ATTALAH: I mean, since yesterday, since this the sit-ins' dispersals, it was hard to really see anything peaceful happening anywhere in the country. All marches, all actions, all protests undertaken by the Brotherhood since the dispersals of the sit-ins, since the forcible dispersals of the sit-ins, have ended up in clashes with residents of the neighborhoods in which they've been marching. But they have also been actively burning police stations. They have been not necessarily just Muslim Brotherhood members, but sympathizers, at least, have been burning churches, particularly outside of Cairo. So betting on peaceful action I think is far-fetched at this point. I did hear repeatedly while covering the dispersal yesterday people from the sit-in calling their fellows in different governorates and telling them not to come to a sit-in anymore, since the sit-in is over, and to just focus on burning the closest police station to them. So it's hard, it's really hard to bet on any peaceful action at this point.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. I'm also trying to get a sense of the mood in the country, because I think it does make a difference to know who was the aggressor in this situation. Obviously, the military, they came out with live ammunition and things of that nature, but the Ministry of Interior is reporting that there were armed protesters, or I should say there were armed people in the camps, in some of the encampments. So can you talk a little bit about that? Do you feel like people are buying that line? Or are there more people now sympathizing with the Muslim Brotherhood supporters?
ATTALAH: I mean, in terms of whether some of the encampments were armed or not, we did do some reporting in the past that proved that there is some weaponry inside the camps, inside the sit-ins. And at the same time, the fact that 43 people died from the ranks of the police is a manifestation of the fact that there has been, you know, some firearms from the side of the protesters during the dispersals of [incompr.] sit-ins. However, to exaggerate this narrative of the armament of the encampments is extremely problematic, because it was clear that what happened yesterday was a typical use of excessive force by both the police and the military to disperse the sit-ins and that there's no way that both parties were equally armed, at least judging, obviously, from the level of the casualties from both ends.
But in terms of a general mood, I do not get a sense that people have sympathized with the Brotherhood more just by the sheer fact that they lost over 500 of their supporters in the course of the few hours during which the sit-ins were dispersed yesterday. And that's mainly due to a state-engineered media campaign to demonize the Brothers, to call them terrorists, to call them armed thugs, which has basically left people with this sense of urge for the state to basically intervene and disperse the sit-ins, whatever it takes, because they are basically terrorists. So there was this huge media campaign that was conducive to very little sympathy from the people towards the Brotherhood, despite the fact that there have been atrocious images from the dispersals yesterday.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. Well, we'll certainly be tracking this story. Lina, thank you so much for joining us.
ATTALAH: Thank you, Jessica. Take care.
DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.