Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Egyptian Security Forces Storm Pro-Morsi Camps Leaving Nearly 100 Dead 381

After weeks of protesting the ousting of Morsi (forming encampments in Cairo during that time), the Egyptian security forces forcibly broke up the protesters' camps early this morning. Things quickly turned violent, leaving around one hundred people dead, including at least two journalists. The interim President has also declared an indefinite state of emergency, "allowing security forces to arrest and detain civilians indefinitely without charge." The AP reports that clashes are not isolated to Cairo: "Dozens of people have been killed across Egypt Wednesday in clashes between security forces and supporters of Morsi."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Egyptian Security Forces Storm Pro-Morsi Camps Leaving Nearly 100 Dead

Comments Filter:
  • Not a Coup? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @11:36AM (#44565145)
    And it's still not a military coup for which reason?
    • by Presto Vivace ( 882157 ) <> on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:04PM (#44565461) Homepage Journal
      was not such a great idea. Even when the bad guy wins, it is better to respect the results of a democratic election.
      • by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

        We have done that zero times.
        We have regularly disposed elected leaders both in the middle east and south america.

        • by chill ( 34294 )

          No shit. I mean, why start now?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          We have done that zero times.

          I am fairly certain that the US has not attempted to overturn every single democratically-elected government on the planet.

          • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:24PM (#44566367)

            Are you deliberately fishing for comments or are you really that illusional? Pick for yourself the one that you like best:

            Iran, 1953 []
            Guatemala, 1954 []
            Brazil, 1964 []
            Chile, 1973 []

            And that's just the ones that I can think of without digging too deeply.

            Aside of that there are various "interventions" that are more or less known to be US based or US backed meddling, from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Turkey and a few more where they actually didn't succeed. Yes, such a thing does happen, too.

            So please don't tell me the US gives a shit about elections. If those elections turn out to be against their interests, the government is fair game.

            • by Dragon Bait ( 997809 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:34PM (#44566481)

              Are you deliberately fishing for comments or are you really that illusional? Pick for yourself the one that you like best:

              Iran, 1953 []
              Guatemala, 1954 []
              Brazil, 1964 []
              Chile, 1973 []

              And that's just the ones that I can think of without digging too deeply.

              I believe the comment was US has not attempted to overturn every single democratically-elected government and not the U.S. has attempted to overturn zero democratically-elected governments.

              Some? Yes. All? No.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Work on reading comprehension.

              The four links you provided were not every election that has occurred. And your handwaving about other instances is... well, did it cool off your fingers?

              There have been many unjust interventions throughout history. By many geopolitical forces. Not just by the U.S. I mean, get fucking real.

      • by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @02:02PM (#44566787)
        Even when the democratically elected official is planning to set himself up as dictator? Their choices were "Confirmed guy trying to be dictator and 0.00001% chance of getting a real election again" They went with the lottery ticket choice (which many people would).
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          There was little to no chance of Morsi becoming a dictator. The military ultimately has the power in Egypt and has for decades. That the ruler has been cozy with the military and therefore safe has been the general rule. Morsi was not only not cozy but aggressively tried to sideline the military which made him unpopular with both the military and the people.

          It doesn't matter who runs Egypt in the next few years. They're going to be unpopular because Egypt's economy is in a shambles largely due to excess

          • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @03:02PM (#44567403)

            There was little to no chance of Morsi becoming a dictator.

            Are you insane? Morsi fired the heads of the military [] and then declared himself and anything he did above the law. []

            He was trying to shift over all control of the military to himself, and also declared himself head of the courts and police...

            He was utterly a dictator. Note that the military did not step in UNTIL the clear will of the people was evidenced in massive protests against Morsi - and even then the military gave Morsi a chance to back off the power grab, which he would not do.

            What the military has done is protected democracy from a monster, and acted only on the will of a people. Someone like you would rather see Egypt fall into a thousand years of darkness as millions died, in order to protect something that was no longer there. Disgusting and utterly stupid.

          • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @03:33PM (#44567703)

            If you truly believe what you wrote you have no idea the steps Morsi was taking.

            The brotherhood was inserting their members (who swear loyalty oaths to the leader) into every single government leadership position (including the ironic one of putting an Islamic leader responsible for the killing of tourists in charge of the main tourist area). In addition the brotherhood had begun inserting themselves into the military by insisting their members be appointed to ranking positions within the military.

            The plan was to replace all the civil, democratic and military leadership with Brotherhood members. With a constitution that gave legal overrides to clerical leadership, all major positions dominated by brotherhood members and the upper military leadership in the hands of the military could you honestly say they didn't appear to be building a dictatorship under the guise of democracy?

            Morsi and the brotherhood took over almost every civil institution and he had started the work of replacing the military leadership when the populace reached the point of no return and the multiple million people protests took place. The military leadership at that point had a public mandate to stop it.

            Is it a coup? Yep. Did the people want it? Yea, almost everyone except for the 20% of the population that considers themselves Islamist. Can they form a working country without that 20%? I doubt it. Consensus and deal making is what will create a stable Egypt, until they realize that on both sides (military and Islamist) they won't go anywhere.

            Revolutions are dirty slow things. The US revolution was super fast in that it only took a little more than a decade for a stable republic to start, and even then we had a civil war later because of unresolved issues the founders left for later generations to sort out. The French revolution was nearly 100 years of royalty, foreign invasion, emperors and failed republics before the modern French republic was birthed from the ashes. If Egypt can pull of a stable republic in 5 years they'll beat the odds. It's silly of anyone to think they are going to get it right on the first try.

            It takes a long time for everyone to realize you can't sideline minorities and that everyones voice needs to be heard in government. The islamists sidelined the Christians and secularists. The Military is sidelining the Islamists. This will likely go back and forth a few times. Morsi outright lied in his campaign about what he would do. He couldn't win anything at this point because everyone knows the brotherhood will say anything to get elected.

              I pity the Egyptians, without Tourism they can not survive financially, there will be bread riots at some point in the future and it's going to be bad. Starving people are very destructive.

      • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @02:28PM (#44567075) Journal

        Even when the bad guy wins, it is better to respect the results of a democratic election.

        This is only true when the elected bad guy himself respects the democratic institutions and free elections, which was not true [] in case of Muslim Brotherhood in power.

      • by gorzek ( 647352 ) <> on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @02:46PM (#44567243) Homepage Journal

        The problem is that, in a country lacking a strong democratic tradition (i.e. Egypt), the democratic process is likely to be (and was being) subverted by whoever fills the power vacuum, in order to prevent ever being dislodged. The Muslim Brotherhood is radical and uncompromising. They were not interested in sharing power, nor are they interested in sharing it now that Morsi's government has been deposed. It's their way or the high way. Unfortunately, blocs that want power-sharing and compromise represent a minority of Egypt's fractious political allegiances.

        It is difficult, to say the least, to have a country with a new democratic process actually stick with it long-term when such a form of government and civil society is not in their cultural DNA. It takes time to build that tradition to the point where you have stable, orderly transfers of power after elections. Look at the US: no matter how chaotic our election campaigns are, no matter how confused or bizarre, people do not end up taking to the streets to kill each other over them. At worst, we call upon the courts to resolve them and then live with that decision. We are invested in and believe in the process, even if we don't always like the results.

        I'm not saying the coup (and it was a coup) was a good option. It may, however, have been the best of limited options. I suppose time will tell. You could argue that Egyptians should have waited until the Brotherhood outright canceled or rigged future elections before taking action, but then you and I are not the ones who have to live with the consequences of it, either way (unless you live in Egypt, in which case I apologize for speaking for you!)

        It may be a long while before Egypt finds stability and reconciliation as they attempt to transition from one-party rule to plurality and compromise.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's the same post WW2 U.S. foreign policy it has always been: dictatorships are preferable to boogeymen.

      Before, boogeymen = commies. Now, boogeymen = islamists.

      You always need the boogeymen. The military-industrial complex needs justification.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Which media outlet claims it wasn't? Every media I have seen suggested a coup in the very beginning. A lesson for any nation: first formulate a fair and balanced constitution, then select a interim government to built the core facilities required to start satisfying the requirements of the constitution, after which you choose a president. Not the other way around.

      • Re:Not a Coup? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jxander ( 2605655 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:33PM (#44565809)

        The government. They're not saying it ISN'T a coup ... but there also not saying that is IS.

        We have laws in this country that prevent us from sending financial aid to countries where a coup has occurred. So as long as the government doesn't actively admit what's going on, we can keep bribing people over there.

        • by Arker ( 91948 )

          "So as long as the government doesn't actively admit what's going on, we can keep bribing people over there."

          The notion that office holders can simply avoid admitting what everyone knows, without even denying it, and thereby entitle themselves to break the law with impunity, is really astonishing.

    • by Guru80 ( 1579277 )
      Because the world would have to be responsible for their inaction and cut off billions in funding, nobody wants that! Oh wait....everybody wants that, except politicians of course. To much money going around in lobbying and special interest groups and whatever else can put money into their pockets to take a stance that might hurt that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Too much money going around in lobbying and special interest groups ...

        The primary "special interest group" behind American support for the coup, is AIPAC []. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Morsi was pro-Hamas. Support for Hamas ended with the coup, and AIPAC has threatened retribution against any politician that tries to cut off the billions of American tax dollars flowing to the new military dictatorship.

        Morsi was a terrible leader, and deserved to be removed from office. But the way to do that in a democracy is to hold a recall election, not by sending

    • Because if it was a coup, then the US government couldn't give the Egyptian government $1B+ each year to buy weapons from US manufacturers, that they then use to maintain their Corporate welfare is very important. You wouldn't want to see those rich industrialists out on the street would you?
    • Of course it's a military coup. Anyone who claims it isn't is either an idiot or is trying to spin it for the "simple folk".

      In this case, it's a military coup that we LIKE because we prefer military juntas to reactionary religious extremists.

      Claiming it's not a military coup because some idiots think that "all military coups are bad" is simply catering to the simpletons who believe things like "all democracy is good" or "all Arabs/Jews are bad" (whichever), etc. In the REAL WORLD, things aren't quite so b

  • They tried it in Egypt, and the army said, "no, you're doing it wrong". Actually it was more like, "no, you might cut into our profits", so... no Democracy for you!
    • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @11:52AM (#44565315)

      I've heard both sides of this. One says Morsi was the democratically elected leader and ousting him destroys any chance at democracy. The other side says he was setting himself up as dictator. As usual, the truth is probably sloppier than either side would admit. I do know that the military is still enjoying a lot of popularity, so this is likely to continue. I wish the country well, and I hope they get it all sorted out.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:14PM (#44565575) Journal

        The problem is both are true. Morsi was the democratically elected leader, and he was setting if not himself up as a dictator permanent brotherhood rule.

        Still unless someone can prove he violated Egypts new Constitution Morsi is the only legitimate leader of that nation. Its not know if Morsi's effort to marginalize opposition parties would have been effective enough to see him re-elected with a public wise to the danger/agenda he posed; it was however to duty of anyone who seriously wanted a democracy in Egypt to wait that long and find out.

        This is sham; and long term I am confident it will prove harmful to reform. You can't have a democracy and a precedent for simply removing elected leaders when you are not satisfied with the outcome.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Some other factors, at least from how I look at it as an outsider...

          Morsi was allowing groups to operate from Egypt that were starting to piss of Israel. The current relationship between the two countries has been amiable at best, and the military of Egypt wants to keep it that way. They don't want Israel to have excuses for incursions, and obviously things that could cause a war is something they DO NOT WANT. (Considering how bad history has been for them regarding past conflicts.) Despite some disagreemen

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            All of what you say are policy positions though. Why have an elected government at all if its not empowered to disagree and ultimately direct its military generals. If the military is the ultimate decider of national policy than you have a oligarchy of military guys with a facade representative government.

            A plurality of the population of Egypt elected Morsi, those people probably want a more hostile relationship with Israel and probably are more concerned with their state religion than with i

        • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @01:07PM (#44566173) Journal

          That's easy to say in a country where the most recently elected leader won't be in power indefinitely.

          Democracy is a subset of freedom, not the other way around. Democracy has shown many times to collapse into dictatorship, especially with new ones.

          Democracy is the tool free people use. Democracy does not create, and sure as hell is not synonymous with, freedom.

        • Well, there IS more than one branch of government. Morsi also started dismissing and overriding the Judiciary unilaterally. He may have felt he has the power to do so under the new powers he granted himself, but that doesnâ(TM)t mean he legally did.

          Basic lesson, 51% of the vote should not mean you get 100% of what you want. All well-functioning democracies have protections for the minority.

      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:16PM (#44565597) Journal

        I'm not sure what the Egyptian Army was to do. The protests against Morsi and the MB were massive, and I think it's well justified to call this a popular uprising.

        Here in the West we're largely used to peaceful transfers of government and political parties, despite some ideological differences, tending to stick to the middle ground on most issues. While there are certainly protest movements, we haven't had them at the fever pitch that has been seen in the Arab Spring. For better or for worse we still, at least nominally, believe in the political process as the appropriate channel for change.

        In countries like Egypt, where democracy has never really existed, and the democratic institutions that are there are more shams or for show than functional governmental and political entities, there is little or no civic notion of political process. A strong man falls, another takes his place. That seems to have been what Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood had decided, that somehow the uprising against Mubarak was simply another iteration of the same old process, and now Morsi could take his rightful place as King of the Mountain, inflict his movement's policies and his political allies on the populace by tossing out everyone from school principles to the head of a symphony orchestra with Muslim Brotherhood members.

        So, for me, while I think it's troubling that the Army again asserted itself into the political process, the problem seems to be a distinct lack of political process. Clearly there are serious flaws in the constitution that was promulgated, and ultimately few checks on the powers of the Egyptian President and his cronies. This is something of a reset, but whether it will produce better results or not is difficult to say. One thing that has happened is that the Egyptian opposition groups and parties realize that their disunity is what delivered Morsi and the MB the last election, and that if they're serious about a change in the way the government works, they're going to have to stop the internecine warfare.

    • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:01PM (#44565427)

      I think it broke down a little before the army stepped in: (condensed from wikipedia entry on Morsi)
      June 2012, election committee announces that Morsi has won the election
      Nov. 2012 - Morsi temporarily grants himself unlimited power, including the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review
          - hundreds of thousands of Egyptians took to the streets in the 2012 Egyptian protests
      Dec 2012 - Morsi annuls his decree of unlimited power, but states that all the effects of his time as de-facto emperor will remain
      June 30, 2013 - mass protests erupt calling for the presidents resignation after severe fuel shortages and electricity outages
          - the army threatens to step in and build a roadmap for the country if protestors demands aren't met by July 3, while insisting they did not want to rule the country or intend for a military coup.
      Morsi was declared unseated on 3 July 2013 by a council consisting of defence minister Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, the Grand Imam of Al Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb, and Coptic Pope Tawadros II

      Can't say I've paid enough attention to Egypt since then to be able to say anything about how democracy is likely to fair going forward, but it certainly wasn't doing too well before the army stepped in.

      • by Trepidity ( 597 )

        If I recall my History Channel correctly, when the Grand Imam of Al Azhar and the Coptic Pope get together and formally agree on something, strange events start taking place.

      • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:57PM (#44566069)

        June 30, 2013 - mass protests erupt calling for the presidents resignation after severe fuel shortages and electricity outages

        Understatement of the year.

        It was arguably the largest protest in the history of the world. Some claims are as much as 14 million people, nearly 17% of the Egyptian population.

        To put that in perspective, 17% of the American population is more than 50 million people.

        If 50 million Americans were protesting in the streets demanding that Obama (or Bush) to be removed from office, and as a response Obama (or Bush) then held a 5 hour television broadcast declaring that he will not only not be leaving office but that additionally that the constitution will never apply to him, then I damn well expect the American military to do the same thing.

    • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:03PM (#44565445) Journal

      The election was flawed inthe first place and rushed.

      The way it was setup insured there were only 2 choices. Center and left was fractured while the right was united through a single radical muslim. So the rule of 2 applied where you had a former Mabarik henchman corrupt or a radical muslim and no further candidates? If you were Egyptian who would you vote for?

      A dictator under corrupt American imperialist or freedom from a religious group who is fanatical, yet was not part of the old boss club?

      American anology would be Pat Robertson who promises a Christian theocracy or King George III who promises a return to the old? Wouldnt must of you protest too?

      These are what the post Morsi protests to ask the army to remove him were about? Majority of Egyptians oppose Morsi like the majority of Americans and Floridians voted for Al Gore, yet Harris threw out enough ballots to tip it to Bush combined with Electoral College caused the anti Bush bias you see and divided country. Egypt is the same. Divided with one group thinks its legit and the other feels robbed.

      Libya is fine and done right

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:20PM (#44565641)

      The situation isn't nearly as simple as you imply. Morsi won the election then suspended parliament and set out on a year-long agenda to usurp power and push though the Muslim Brotherhood's view of Egypt's future, which is far more religious than most Egyptians want. I know that we in the west expect our elected politicians to break most of their campaign promises and then do what they had secretly planned to do all along as soon as they are in office, but the Egyptions weren't having it right after a revolution.

      The army does what it does for many reasons, in parallel. I doubt that they are purely altruistic, but I believe they were sincere in enforcing the will of the people. They only removed Morsi after millions of people had protested against the president for weeks, with more and more people coming out every day. A true democracy should have some way to kick someone out of office if he or she completely disregards their mandate. This obviously isn't it, but it's what many of the people wanted, and Morsi wasn't about to hold a referendum to see.

      Of course, the current situation is not good. Morsi supporters were glad that he was a champion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt was already a silently divided nation before this came into the open. The conservative religious factions would like to gradually move Egypt towards Sharia law and Islamic theocracy. Others, especially among the youth, would like Egypt to embrace more aspects of Western culture.

      Egypt is one of the more modern Islamic nations. The country is relatively open to the West and there is a great deal of tourism in the country that exposes them to Western culture. They are also very active online with relatively little censorship. I believe that the majority of Egyptians want to see the nation continue in this direction. This is good for the rest of the Western world as well. Egypt's culture has considerable influence on the rest of the Arabic world due to their prominent media industries. It is one of the reasons that people who wish to study Arabic are told to learn Egyptian Arabic. It is the most widely understood modern Arabic dialect. As such, if Egypt breaks away from the influence of religious fundamentalism then it's a win for everyone except the fundies.

      So, what can they do at this point? If most people were upset with Morsi for abandoning his mandate and acting as an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, then he should clearly not be in power. How then do you appease those who want him re-instated? They have been protesting and creating problems for over 5 or 6 weeks now, in the middle of the capital. There is no perfect solution. Unfortunately, the army has turned to force and this will mar everything else that they have done, but I still believe that supporting the will of the people was one of their main reasons for entering the fray, and there are not many options on the table when you are dealing with violent mobs with armed members.

      At this point only time will tell where Egypt goes next, but with Morsi at the helm they were not on their way to true democracy. Ultimately, when you have such large opposing factions, true democracy may be impossible.

  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <> on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @11:43AM (#44565237) Homepage Journal

    The non-Muslims are divided into many smaller groups so can't form a cohesive opposition to the Muslim majority. The Muslims are well organized and it's easy for their imams to tell everyone to vote for the same guy.

    What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

    • You do know the majority of Egyptians oppose Morsi? The elections were setup in a way where a former Marbarak henchman vs a Morsi were your only 2 votes. They voted agaisnt marbarek more than voted for Morsi. Then Morsi gave himself god like powers and dissolved parliment.

    • What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

      Storm peaceful protesters, killing dozens, if not hundreds. Right?

    • Straight man answer: You have, or form, a constitution which lays down the basic rights that apply to everyone. You reason out to the majority that they might be on the receiving end of the stick some day and these rules will protect them as much as it limits them. And it's good for society and all that shit. Then you establish a rule of law where the powerful will still be punished for breaking the law. *cough*NSA's Clapper lying to congress*cough*.

      That's how, you know, it's supposed to go. In theory. ...I

    • by Guppy06 ( 410832 )

      You're conflating "Muslims" with "Islamists."

    • Close to home (Score:2, Interesting)

      The non-Muslims are divided into many smaller groups so can't form a cohesive opposition to the Muslim majority. The Muslims are well organized and it's easy for their imams to tell everyone to vote for the same guy. What do you do when the majority want to take away your freedoms?

      So not much different than Baptist ministers in the south-eastern US.

      No matter where you go, religion is terrible.

  • by dryriver ( 1010635 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @11:49AM (#44565287)
    The country as a whole would have been far worse off with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge - for, say, a whole decade. If Egypt is to stay secular, and remain/become a modern country, it is imperative that the country doesn't fall into the hands of the theo-conservatives. So while the deathtoll is tragic, the country would - in the long run - be infinitely, infinitely worse off if governed by the Muslim Brotherhood... I hope that things settle down in Egypt, and that the country's shortlived democracy experiment resumes, and works out better this time. My 2 cents.
    • Do you seriously suspect that this crackdown will work? Mubarak spent the better part of his time in office flexing his (ample) willingness to exercise 'emergency powers' and a bit of the old extralegal detention and torture trying to get rid of them, and look how successful that wasn't.

      Once in power, the Brotherhood turned out to be as incompetent as they were autocratic, so their charm wore off a bit; but several decades of steady state violence didn't keep them from being the best prepared outfit when t

    • The problem is that now the dead protestors become martyrs and gain support.

  • Only 1 person revealed what the NSA was doing out of 100's knowing about it yet people say the military and police wouldn't go against the US public is they were ordered to.

  • News for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:00PM (#44565419) Homepage Journal

    Usually news stories on this site have at least a faint aroma of tech relevance.

    Certain select stories are of such a high importance that everyone wants to talk about them and they appear on this site despite having no relevance to the major purpose.

    That's fine, really it is. But I have to ask, where is the dividing line? Will we be seeing articles on Syria? More than 100 people are killed there on a regular basis. Fourty-four were killed in a mosque in Nigeria the other day. Is that significant? A white-ish guy shot an innocent black kid who was definitely not bashing the white-guy's head into the pavement - is that relevant?

    I found this very interesting Third Amendment lawsuit [] (yes, Third amendment) and didn't submit because it was offtopic.

    I'm not saying that world events are not important, and this one is pretty high on the importance scale. It's just that I avoid regular news sites and frequent this one because it saves time. Yes, I can skip articles - but note that I can skip articles in Google News and Reddit as well.

    I can't find the link, but I remember a chart of "Slashdot readership" that showed a general decline over the last several years.

    This leade to a simple question: Is Slashdot better for reporting generic news items, or should it be more about "News for Nerds"?

    • You could, you know, not open the story.

    • by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
      Slashdot most certainly shouldn't be so isolationist as to avoid talking about anything non-tech. I think it can be interesting to have discussions about non-tech news with the very tech/science focused community here, which is very different from most other news sites.
      • Re:News for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Scorch_Mechanic ( 1879132 ) on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:47PM (#44565955) Journal

        Very much this. People who complain that this or that news story isn't "news for nerds" are forgetting that the "nerds" who read Slashdot often provide more insightful commentary than any other group of private citizen commentators, and certainly more insight than what the majority of the 24 hour news-cycle organizations. Furthermore, because Slashdot has global readership we get commentary from people outside the United States. I love reading slashdot comments for the same reasons I like listening to the BBC on the radio on my local public radio station (KQED), because I hear fresh viewpoints that originate not in this country.
        Slashdot's readership is one of the largest college educated and tech focused groups out there. It's clear to me that the people who read these terrible story summaries and comment here are frightfully smart, and it would be a terrible waste not to capitalize on the group intelligence present here whenever possible.

    • by Velex ( 120469 )

      This is "stuff that matters." /. has a mature commenting-moderating-metamoderating threaded forum system (despite its noted failures such as UTF-8 support and WTF the mobile interface is supposed to be). I come here for the debates.

      I'd like to see more articles on Syria or Nigeria. The whole Trayvon Martin thing was overblown in the mainstream media imo, but that's what the mainstream media does. I don't remember many articles here unless I just filtered them out and forgot about them. The mainstream me

  • "allowing security forces to arrest and detain civilians indefinitely without charge."

    Uh, is the article about Egypt or America? It's hard for me to keep track sometimes.

  • by axl917 ( 1542205 ) <> on Wednesday August 14, 2013 @12:26PM (#44565729)

    what does this have to do with Slashdot, really? We're not really a general news site.

  • Yep. Good.

    That government was openly plotting to strip over half the population of their rights. Religion is a disease. It must be purged.

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer