Egyptian riots

Pages

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/...

Seemingly, this is a social riot not a religious one like the ones that brought the Shah of Iran down and Ayatalloh into power. I really don't think there will be much change. With 80 million people, Egypt has much potential.

We also have an interest in Egypt not changing.

The Muslim Brotherhood is probably the best-organized opposition political party, and could stand to greatly benefit from a transition to democracy - they're not big fans of the US.

That said, I think that longer-term a democratic Egypt is a positive influence on the region. I detest the fact that our government is so willing (arguably eager) to support repressive regimes as long as they swear fealty to our then-current policy goals.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We also have an interest in Egypt not changing.

Word. Both USA and Israel are probably busy cataloguing their options to quietly help Mubarak hold on to power.

But if there's no freedom in Egypt, shouldn't you guys be moving to blockade it with aircraft carriers? Egypt is central to US interests and could be a competitor in the future. You guys better be ready.

As was shown in the recent leak to Al Jazeera, Israel specifically doesn't want democracies in the nations around it. They want strong rulers that will be subservient.

Malor wrote:

As was shown in the recent leak to Al Jazeera, Israel specifically doesn't want democracies in the nations around it. They want strong rulers that will be subservient.

That's certainly not a surprise. It's just disappointing that has far too often also been US policy.

Democracies are messy, but propping up dictators only ever leads to a (well-earned) backlash.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Malor wrote:

As was shown in the recent leak to Al Jazeera, Israel specifically doesn't want democracies in the nations around it. They want strong rulers that will be subservient.

That's certainly not a surprise. It's just disappointing that has far too often also been US policy.

Democracies are messy, but propping up dictators only ever leads to a (well-earned) backlash.

I think that all depends on how you define "democracy" and "dictator." You might even say that all countries end messily. Ours hasn't yet but saying it never will is like saying you're immortal because you've never died.

The Coptics suffer enough, if something called the Muslim Brotherhood comes into power, what more could happen?

I'm not sure where I said that democracy and longevity (let alone immortality) were synonymous.

Democracies certainly end. This happens with some regularity, either through dissolution, conquest, or a revolution in favor of some other means of governance. This is also true of other forms of government.

In the interest of defining terms, we'll go with the loose definition of dictator as "a single powerful ruler who is not elected by the populace, though fraudulent elections may be staged in a pretense at legitimacy". My point is that when a dictatorship ends, there is an inevitable backlash.

Mubarak's re-election each time has been a foregone conclusion in part because of shenanigans like barring the Muslim Brotherhood from running candidates for office. Egypt's casual use of torture is not winning over the citizenry, either. If and when the people of Egypt decide Mubarak needs to go, there will be no shortage of ill-feeling towards governments and people who supported him.

Spoiler:

That's us.

Coptics are suffering in Iraq a lot too, despite the fact that we're practically micro-managing the place.

Stuff like this gives me a lot of hope that the people of Egypt, as a whole, are far more progressive and tolerant than I think most westerners give them credit for.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Stuff like this gives me a lot of hope that the people of Egypt, as a whole, are far more progressive and tolerant than I think most westerners give them credit for.

Egypt actually has a pretty good metal scene too, drawing from Morroccan metal and some Israeli metal bands. They're pretty western in the middle class in the cities.

Dimmerswitch, before you lean too heavily on the "fraudulent elections" thing, tell me, when was the last time the United States had an election found to be completely free of "irregularities?" How off do things need to be in order for it to count as fraud? Don't give me examples, I want a formula. I know that Iran's election was fraudulent. I'd like some metric for how fraudulent.

Obama lauded the Tunisia revolt. Didn't mention Egypt at all. Though I believe Clinton has said the USA stands by the Mubarak government.

I think that we're starting to go rather off the rails if the thread is devolving into recursively defining terms. If you have an alternative definition of dictator you'd like to use here, I'm certainly open to it.

On a more on-topic note, police were deployed to clear protestors off the streets, and there are reports of tear gas, rubber bullets being fired, and beatings.

Twitter and Facebook are also being blocked.

Interestingly, the Muslim Brotherhood has chosen to not participate in any of the protests (at least, so far).

I read on BBC that Obama expressed his support to Mubarak on Monday.

If MB wins in an election and we have a hostile Egyptian government, I wonder if we'll ghettoize them like we did with Hamas.

That was fast.

Reuters[/url]]The United States bluntly urged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday to make political reforms in the face of protesters demanding his ouster, marking a pivot in its stance toward a key Arab ally.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

That was fast.

Reuters[/url]]The United States bluntly urged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday to make political reforms in the face of protesters demanding his ouster, marking a pivot in its stance toward a key Arab ally.

In short, throw the street a bone in the hopes that they don't overthrow you and elect the Muslim Brotherhood.

Internet cut off and phone service disrupted, and demonstrations are continuing in the teeth of a crackdown.

Several leading members of Muslim Brotherhood arrested, in spite of their staying on the sidelines up til now.

Also some reports of demonstrations in Yemen.

Where ARE those aircraft carriers? This always happens when freedom isn't in the country. Egypt. Blockade. Now. We simply don't have enough populations under virtual apartheid, and Egypt is volunteering.

Isn't it really, really interesting that the United States is trying to implement that exact same capacity, the ability to disable the Internet?

Dirt wrote:

The Coptics suffer enough, if something called the Muslim Brotherhood comes into power, what more could happen?

I walk by 2 Coptic churches on my way to the train station every day...last night I overheard a group of elderly gentlemen lamenting over this situation.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Twitter and Facebook are also being blocked.

Somewhere in Egypt right now there are people who have no interest in politics that are really pissed they can't change their status or tell people what they're having for lunch. Collateral damage!

Al Jazeera's English livestream is here: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

Looks like the fan has blown a fuse. Its going to be interesting to hear some people defend the actions of the Egyptian government.

Is there any proof that we will see a repeat of the Iranian revolution or is that fear unfounded?

Axon wrote:

Is there any proof that we will see a repeat of the Iranian revolution or is that fear unfounded?

Seems to me that they'll have a democracy if Mubarak's overthrown, it'll just be a democracy that really doesn't like the West. You know, like a really big Palestine.

I would guess that one of the reforms the USA would be eager for Egypt to implement would be a separation of Mosque and State.

But is there any proof that they are anti-West. It seems the protesters demands are to set up a state in the image of the social democratic model of Europe. Now, that's what happened in Iran in 1979 but are those Islamic forces powerful enough to high jack the protests?

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/...

Explanation of events, being updated.

Axon wrote:

But is there any proof that they are anti-West. It seems the protesters demands are to set up a state in the image of the social democratic model of Europe. Now, that's what happened in Iran in 1979 but are those Islamic forces powerful enough to high jack the protests?

I suspect not. I don't think anyone wants their country to be Iran II. While there may be religious elements I think the protests are more due to general social awareness. It's more of a grassroots uprising than anything being led from the front. In many ways it seems that Iran serves as a warning to other Middle Eastern nations of the danger of theocracy.

And considering that there are also protests in Algeria I get the feeling this may be the beginning of big changes in our world.

Pages