FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Fomenting Civil War in Egypt

by ERIC DRAITSER

The killing of more than 50 peopleat a demonstration in support of ousted Egyptian President Morsi in Cairo on Monday has justifiably horrified many in Egypt and internationally.  The pro-Morsi elements have placed the blame on the military forces, while the military claims it was attacked with live ammunition.  While accusations are hurled back and forth, a new aspect to this story is emerging – the presence of a third force, namely snipers stationed on rooftops firing at both sides of the conflict.  This revelation raises serious questions about the true nature of the conflict in Egypt and the disturbing similarities between this incident and similar ones in Syria, Thailand, and elsewhere.

The Cairo Massacre

As thousands gathered near the Republican Guard headquarters where many believe the Egyptian military is holding former President Morsi, violence erupted, killing at least 51 people and injuring hundreds.  The bloody incident marked a clear transition from a purely political conflict to a potential civil war.

According to military officials, pro-Morsi “terrorists” attempted to storm the building, thereby eliciting a violent response from the military forces defending themselves.  Colonel Ahmad Mohammad Ali, a spokesman for the Egyptian military claimed that police personnel were attacked while attempting to secure the area.  He noted that, “They were on top of buildings…they either fired or threw things down…they were firing live ammunition and the military had to defend itself.”  Colonel Ali’s comments have been echoed by most major media outlets in Egypt which are largely controlled by forces sympathetic to the military and the former Mubarak regime.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood and other pro-Morsi forces paint a distinctly different picture.

A statement on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party website naturally blames the Egyptian military forces for wantonly killing what it describes as “peaceful protestors who reject the military coup and demand reinstatement of their elected President Mohamed Morsi.” From the Islamist perspective, the massacre, as well as the coup itself, was a direct assault not only on the Muslim Brotherhood but on democracy itself.  Moreover, the killings seem to have set the precedent that Islamist elements have no recourse in Egypt other than violence.

Despite the differences between these opposing factions, there is a common thread between them – both are blaming the other for inciting the violence that could lead to a total destabilization of the country.  However, here it critical to note that the bulk of the killings on Monday took place at the hands of unknown snipers stationed on rooftops, as shown in this video.

Although the snipers appear to be wearing military uniforms, their actual identity remains unclear.  Because it is impossible to verify exactly who the snipers were, and who they were working for, it is critical to instead examine the possible motives or lack thereof.

The military has claimed repeatedly that they were attacked and that the response was purely defensive.  However, this cannot possibly explain the presence of military snipers on rooftops, no mere defensive posture.  Conversely, the claim by the Muslim Brotherhood and allied supporters that the snipers were obviously Egyptian military does not seem consistent with the political circumstances, nor the facts on the ground.

First and foremost, it should be noted that the military stands nothing to gain and everything to lose from using such tactics.  Having seized power in what can only be regarded as one of the most “popular coups” (not my term) in modern history, they already had the majority of the country and world opinion on their side.  There was no worldwide condemnation of their actions, rather, governments seemed to be falling over themselves to “look forward” and “call for stability”, both simply coded language for tacit support.  So, with the world watching Egypt, carefully scrutinizing every move the military and secular opposition make, in what possible way could they stand to benefit from sowing such chaos?  Naturally, they stood to gain nothing.  Moreover, the notion that Egyptian military snipers would fire at their fellow soldiers is far-fetched to say the least.

Secondly, the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters undoubtedly understood the impossibility of fighting the military on the streets.  Whatever weapons sources claim they had (bottles, rocks, small arms) are certainly not enough to significantly impact the military.  The notion that these demonstrators attempted to “storm” the Republican Guard headquarters seems laughable.  Although the crowd was predominantly comprised of fervent supporters of the deposed President Morsi, they were still regular Egyptians, not militant Salafists or some such formation.

So it would seem that neither side really stood to benefit or had the capability to do what the other side is suggesting.  That would then raise the most critical question of all…if the snipers were not part of either side, then who exactly were they?  It would seem that the only logical conclusion would be that the snipers were from some as yet unknown third party whose interest was not in taking sides but in ensuring that violent clashes and killings would take place so as to stoke tensions and foment civil war.  Keen observers will note that we have seen this scenario before, most recently in Syria.

The Syrian and Thai Precedent

At the outbreak of the violence in Syria in 2011, many wondered how the situation on the ground escalated so quickly.  It would seem, according to mainstream Western media reports, that the Syrian security forces had simply gone mad and began killing peaceful demonstrators at random.  However, what became clear within days was the fact that unknown snipers stationed on rooftops in cities such as Deraa and Hama were indeed the main culprits.  As seen in these videos as well as countless articles, the presence of snipers on rooftops throughout Syria is undeniable.  Naturally, the claim was immediately made that the snipers were merely Assad’s military forces.  Conveniently enough, no evidence was ever produced that showed the initial snipers were indeed government soldiers.

Interestingly, the Arab League observer mission, itself openly hostile to the Assad regime, noted in its report of early 2012 that many of the atrocities including sniper shootings, could be correctly attributed to a third, unknown force inside the country.  As the report noted:

The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol.  This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian government forces in response to protests that occurred before the deployment of the Mission demanding the fall of the regime.  In  some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the government to respond with further violence.

The report corroborates what many eyewitnesses have stated, namely that some of the violence that erupted at the outset of the conflict in Syria was attributable to this “third force” replete with snipers and military training and equipment.  Predictably, the report attempts to spin the violence from the “third force” as being purely in response to the Syrian military, but provides no evidence other than a generic assertion that “undoubtedly [the violence] should be attributed to the excessive use of force by Government forces”.  Essentially then, it should be clear that there was some element inside of Syria during the early stages of the conflict that used snipers and other forms of violence and terror to push the opposition and government into full scale war.  It seems to have worked quite successfully.

Syria is certainly not the only country that has experienced this sort of phenomenon.  In 2010, violence erupted between the government of Thailand and red shirted supporters of US-backed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.  Just as in Syria, mysterious gunmen armed with sniper rifles, machine guns, and grenades emerged within the ranks of the red shirts and began attacking Thai troops, killing a prominent Colonel and six other soldiers. The attempt to “storm” a military facility with protestors was clearly a cynically orchestrated cover for the fomenting of chaos and possible destabilization of the country with the intention of installing Washington’s darling Shinawatra.  Here again we see that snipers and other armed, unknown fighters were at the center of the incident.

What happened in Thailand was no mere accident.  It required coordination and planning, financing and materiel support.  This indicates that, contrary to the mainstream media’s fantastical narrative, this was no mere political protest and should not be treated as such.  Rather, as in Syria, we see a clear example of the lengths to which certain elements will go to achieve their political aims.

The details of the massacre in Egypt are still coming out, so it is impossible to say for certain exactly what happened.  However, judging from previous experiences in Syria and Thailand, one should have reservations about the narrative being sold to the public.  Who exactly were those snipers in Cairo?  Who gave the order to fire at both pro-Morsi protestors and at the military forces?  The answers to these and other questions must emerge with time.  Hopefully, there is still a united and peaceful Egypt when they finally do.

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.com. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

More articles by:

Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio. He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at ericdraitser@gmail.com.

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
June 23, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Democrats in the Dead Zone
Gary Leupp
Trump, Qatar and the Danger of Total Confusion
Andrew Levine
The “Democracies” We Deserve
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
The FBI’s “Operation Backfire” and the Case of Briana Waters
Rob Urie
Cannibal Corpse
Joseph G. Ramsey
Savage Calculations: On the Exoneration of Philando Castille’s Killer
John Wight
Trump’s Attack on Cuba
Dave Lindorff
We Need a Mass Movement to Demand Radical Progressive Change
Brian Cloughley
Moving Closer to Doom
David Rosen
The Sex Offender: the 21st Century Witch
John Feffer
All Signs Point to Trump’s Coming War With Iran
Jennifer L. Lieberman
What’s Really New About the Gig Economy?
Pete Dolack
Analyzing the Failures of Syriza
Vijay Prashad
The Russian Nexus
Mike Whitney
Putin Tries to Avoid a Wider War With the US
Gregory Barrett
“Realpolitik” in Berlin: Merkel Fawns Over Kissinger
Louis Yako
The Road to Understanding Syria Goes Through Iraq
Graham Peebles
Grenfell Tower: A Disaster Waiting to Happen
Ezra Rosser
The Poverty State of Mind and the State’s Obligations to the Poor
Ron Jacobs
Andrew Jackson and the American Psyche
Pepe Escobar
Fear and Loathing on the Afghan Silk Road
Lawrence Davidson
On Hidden Cultural Corruptors
Andre Vltchek
Why I Reject Western Courts and Justice
Christopher Brauchli
The Routinization of Mass Shootings in America
Missy Comley Beattie
The Poor Need Not Apply
Martin Billheimer
White Man’s Country and the Iron Room
Joseph Natoli
What to Wonder Now
Tom Clifford
Hong Kong: the Chinese Meant Business
Thomas Knapp
The Castile Doctrine: Cops Without Consequences
Nyla Ali Khan
Borders Versus Memory
Binoy Kampmark
Death on the Road: Memory in Tim Winton’s Shrine
Tony McKenna
The Oily Politics of Unity: Owen Smith as Northern Ireland Shadow Secretary
Nizar Visram
If North Korea Didn’t Exist US Would Create It
John Carroll Md
At St. Catherine’s Hospital, Cite Soleil, Haiti
Kenneth Surin
Brief Impressions of the Singaporean Conjucture
Paul C. Bermanzohn
Trump: the Birth of the Hero
Jill Richardson
Trump on Cuba: If Obama Did It, It’s Bad
Olivia Alperstein
Our President’s Word Wars
REZA FIYOUZAT
Useless Idiots or Useful Collaborators?
Clark T. Scott
Parallel in Significance
Louis Proyect
Hitler and the Lone Wolf Assassin
Julian Vigo
Theresa May Can’t Win for Losing
Richard Klin
Prog Rock: Pomp and Circumstance
Charles R. Larson
Review: Malin Persson Giolito’s “Quicksand”
David Yearsley
RIP: Pomp and Circumstance
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail