[baltcode]

1. Have you taken part in protests under authoritarian regimes where the judiciary is biased or unreliable, or where the police force is trying to control a problematic out-group? Or is your experience from first world countries like the US, Western Europe etc? Would you excuse the police in a similar way, say in Venezuela or Iran? How about in apartheid South Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, or Saudi Arabia? Who gets to picks and choose?

2. In case of an attack on a police station or church, what should be the correct response: a) arrest and prosecute those involved by presenting evidence in an open court, or b) fire on protestors elsewhere against a coup because you think some have the same sympathies as those involved in the said attack?

The reason why feel I dejected by your line of thinking is that it makes it really easy to justify violence. Daesh can use the same line of reasoning to target those it deems part of the Egyptian state, including the opposition liberals and Muslim Brotherhood for being part of the mass that is not violent towards the state. Trump rallies the epicenter of violence and racism, BLM should be justified on opening fire on them? Since BLM opposed to police actions and hence the rule of law, the Fraternal Orders of Police and the like should open fire on them.

[acqq]

1. Yes, precisely, that's exactly why I can claim that. I won't go into details, but I'm living the situations again as I write this, even if I'd rather not have had these experiences, looking back (that's how I can relate to the author of the article).

2. It was obviously not "fire on the protesters elsewhere" but the "fire to protect yourself (or the innocent people) from the attack." Again, at least 43 policemen were killed.

The rest of the post tries to introduce logical fallacies to win the argument. We discussed the specific case.

[kalkin]

> police doesn't shoot at the crowd "just so" (tear gas, water cannons and beating are preferred)

There are thousands of times when this hasn't been true, from Tiananmen Square to Kent State to the Plaza de las Tres Culturas to, yes, Rabaa. The government always claims in these situations that the police were acting in self-defense but it is rarely true (because people are rarely suicidal).

You say you want to discuss "the specific case" but present no actual evidence from Rabaa. Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say (not a perfect source of course but a lot better than the military regime's health ministry):

> The systematic and widespread killing of at least 1,150 demonstrators by Egyptian security forces in July and August 2013 probably amounts to crimes against humanity... In the August 14 dispersal of the Rab’a al-Adawiya sit-in alone, security forces, following a plan that envisioned several thousand deaths, killed a minimum of 817 people and more likely at least 1,000.

> The 188-page report, “All According to Plan: The Rab’a Massacre and Mass Killings of Protesters in Egypt,” documents the way the Egyptian police and army methodically opened fire with live ammunition on crowds of demonstrators opposed to the military’s July 3 ouster of Mohamed Morsy, Egypt’s first elected civilian president, at six demonstrations between July 5 and August 17, 2013. While there is also evidence that some protesters used firearms during several of these demonstrations, Human Rights Watch was able to confirm their use in only a few instances, which do not justify the grossly disproportionate and premeditated lethal attacks on overwhelmingly peaceful protesters.

(https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/12/egypt-raba-killings-like...)

And, look, nobody can stop you from issuing tissue-thin justifications for political massacres and then crying "logical fallacy" when somebody draws out the implications for you, but it doesn't come off very well.

[acqq]

Nobody can stop you misinterpreting what the other side writes:

http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-03-27

The Egyptian National Council for Human Rights considers HRW report biased, and they state why:

http://www.nchregypt.org/index.php/en/media-center/news/1427...

"The author of the Human Rights Watch report has intentionally disregarded one of the fundamental testimonies from the reporter Maged Atef about the murder of one of the Police officers after which the exchange of fires started. However, the report, in an obvious bias stand, has taken into account this testimony in more than twenty parts of it related to other happenings which do not condemn the Muslim Brotherhood."

"In addition, the author of the report did not mention any of the human rights violations committed by the management of the sit-in, including cases of kidnapping and torture, as well as cases of using the persons who were participating in the sit-in as human shields and detaining them in the sit-in."

I'm not saying I agree either only with NCHR or HRW. But I'm claiming that the categorization you promote is biased, especially because you don't explain how it is possible to have so many victims among the police unless they were killed by the armed opponents, which, if the later were shooting from the mass, obviously disregarded the lives of the people around them too.