3 votes

Egypt Massacre: Live ammunition, snipers used to disperse protests

Military's been using live ammunition since this latest bout of unrest kicked off in Egypt on Wednesday. More shocking footage of civilians being fired on has emerged online. RT's Ruptly video agency has obtained footage showing masked men armed with automatic weapons firing back at police in Cairo. RT's Paula Slier talks to relatives of those who died during the violence.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Egypt is the consequence of tyranny.

Tyranny, be it from a small elite or the "tyranny of the majority," always results in oppression. When people who long to be free can stand no more oppression, they strike back violently and innocent people on both sides get hurt or killed. Both those who support "liberal tyranny" or "neocon tyranny" should pay close attention; because Americans are better equipped and just as capable of "unleashing the whirlwind" on them.

Just heard some double speak coming from the CBC.

They said it was the fault of the muslim brother hood for causing the military to kill protesters involved with....the muslim brother hood. This from the station that hardly even reported on the millions of protesters that deposed their last government in the first place. I don't know what they want out of this, but the story wreaks of BS.

Has anyone else

Has anyone else seen the video of the "protestors" firing on the police? I have come to my own conclusion that the CIA is doing again what they did in Libya and Syria. Send in people to start the fight but show only the reactions.


"Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security." - Dr. Ron Paul

Can happen anywhere once the pain and suffering

reaches an intolerable level.

Somewhere recently I saw a chart that compared the cost of food with civil unrest and there was a correlation. The less affordable food is, the more civil unrest. While correlation does not prove cause and effect, I think the connection between going hungry and wanting to revolt against the government you blame is fairly obvious. Here is a quote I read today from an Egyptian student just back at school in Canada:

At this point in time I think back more fondly to the times under Mubarak than those under Morsi. There are things that were worse under Mubarak but there was stability in the nation. That is the most important thing to restore. To complete this in Egypt the most important industry to restore is tourism because a majority of workers have ties to it in one way or another. Without tourists coming to Egypt there has been massive decline in all related industries, and accompanied with rapidly rising food prices (many things 3 to 5 more expensive than 2 years ago) there is a massively held attitude of dissatisfaction with the government. I hope that my people are able to take the passion and determination for a free and fair society and bring it to fruition with a real democratic government that serves to the will of the people.

This is our future as the growing cost to acquire energy to fuel our economy makes even the basics unaffordable. It is just a matter of looking at the exponential growth curves (compound growth) and where they take us. The low hanging fruit principle works great at first, but then it bites you in the butt when all the easy to acquire energy is gone.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

That's an interesting observation.

Do you think that if food prices are high, there must be something systemically wrong with freedom and commerce in the fist place? Otherwise, competition would help bring prices down? It might be a good indicator of unrest, even if it's not a causal relationship.

When the cost of producing food increases,

all the competition in the world is not going to contain the cost of food. All producers all going to face similar input costs, and they would go out of business if they didn't get a price that covered their costs and gave them some return for their efforts. Competition drives out inefficient participants; it doesn't reverse the laws of nature.

At the time of the US Civil War the average yield of corn per acre was about 40 bushels. Some acreage had to be devoted to growing feed for draft animals and at that time it was common practice to let some fields lay fallow to regenerate, so the yield of 40 bushels per acre was overstated when you took into account the additional acres necessary to support that production. Today yield is 3 times that had in 1861, and there is no land set aside for draft animals or left to lay fallow. We pump in fertilizer that is made from natural gas and pesticides made from oil; we drive equipment with either gasoline or diesel. Food production has been industrialized, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and since the cost to acquire these fossil fuels is growing exponentially, increases in the cost of producing food will follow.

It isn't about competition. It is about natural constraints. Higher prices are simply the mechanism that tells us about the exponential growth in the cost to acquire energy.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

To a point, sure.

But lets say a loaf of bread is $10 tomorrow, or that groceries become 3 to 5 times as expensive in the course of a year or two. Will we attribute the rise in price solely to increased cost of production?