Egyptian riots

Paleocon wrote:

epilogue: Nearly 20 years later, I met a girl at Starbucks in Columbia, Maryland. She was a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend who thought that we would get along. It turns out she was at that demonstration. She was in her freshman year at the school of nursing. Nearly 20 years to the day, I married that girl.

So you're married to a violent, anti-government Communist? That explains a lot!

Sorry, Anglosaxon Media. Try better next time.

FTFY. Rudi Vranckx has done some EXCELLENT coverage for our public network. Although unfortunately their was also room for Belgian tourists moping about having to cut their vacation short.

/patriotism

The reason that there is as much violence as there already is is because the Egyptian people are not completely willing to sacrifice their lives for this cause. This is why there's rock-throwing and why protesters avoid police vehicles running at them trying to kill them.

They are civilians. They have no hope of victory in a violent conflict, so the only way they can win is if they abandon all violence. Let Mubarak and his thugs come with guns, tear gas, fire, trucks, and tanks. Let them all come, but engage not in any sort of activity that could even be mistaken for violence. Don't raise the fist. Don't throw the rock. Abandon all self-defense. If the tanks come, lie in front of them and let them kill you.

I am sympathetic to the Egyptians, I really am; but taking the moderate road is no longer open to them. In order to win, they must be extremely peaceful and profoundly nonviolent.

dejanzie wrote:
Sorry, Anglosaxon Media. Try better next time.

FTFY. Rudi Vranckx has done some EXCELLENT coverage for our public network. Although unfortunately their was also room for Belgian tourists moping about having to cut their vacation short.

/patriotism

That's the worst thing about dictatorships. If they go t-up you don't get your money back on your vacation there.

LarryC wrote:

The reason that there is as much violence as there already is is because the Egyptian people are not completely willing to sacrifice their lives for this cause. This is why there's rock-throwing and why protesters avoid police vehicles running at them trying to kill them.

They are civilians. They have no hope of victory in a violent conflict, so the only way they can win is if they abandon all violence. Let Mubarak and his thugs come with guns, tear gas, fire, trucks, and tanks. Let them all come, but engage not in any sort of activity that could even be mistaken for violence. Don't raise the fist. Don't throw the rock. Abandon all self-defense. If the tanks come, lie in front of them and let them kill you.

I am sympathetic to the Egyptians, I really am; but taking the moderate road is no longer open to them. In order to win, they must be extremely peaceful and profoundly nonviolent.

I'm not sure that's the case. There needs to be greater restraint on their part, since I agree they won't instigate change through violence. But that doesn't mean that the limited amount of self-defense they've engaged in loses them the moral high ground here. I'm particularly confused about how getting out of the way of a vehicle trying to run you over qualifies as anything other than nonviolent.

Dimmerswitch:

It's nonviolent, but moving out of the way of a vehicle or getting out of the fire range of a weapon compromises the only weapon they do have: a demonstration of resolve.

Dictators like Mubarak believe that they can hold power and force others to do their bidding through threats of physical violence and death. I say "threat," because they can't actually kill the entire nation and hope to benefit from it. They use examples to cow everyone else into subservience. When you avoid death, you are demonstrating that your side does not have the resolve to stand firm.

If you meet death head on, and most of your civilian body does likewise, it does two things:

1. It demonstrates to the enemy that he cannot use physical violence, pain, or death to influence your thinking. If he wants to disperse the crowd, he's going to have to kill all of you.

2. It exposes him for the monster he really is. It doesn't take a lot of death for most people to get repulsed, particularly if the targets offer no resistance or even avoidance of death. If most of your people dodge, the people driving the truck can justify their behavior to themselves: "He was just too darned slow - the idiot!" If they know beforehand that none of you have any intention of moving out of their way, then they can no longer hide from their actions - they know they're committing a massacre with a deadly weapon, against unresisting civilians.

Looks like Mubarak is quoted as saying something to the effect of "I'd leave now but my country needs me to maintain order."

Also, more and more people are convinced that the violence is an organized force perpetrated by Mubarak's people.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03...

Here's an article I found interesting.

It seems that the car hitting the protesters may not have been an isolated incident. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWOK0Lfh7w

More evidence about the pro-government "demonstrators" being in cahoots with the police.

Small excerpt of Time article wrote:

Crossing the Nile at October 6th bridge to work my way into Tahrir from the north, I was grabbed by a young man who threatened me with a stick and tried to drag me over to what appeared to be an improvised gang checkpoint cutting off the tree-lined avenue that runs along the river. I turned to a nearby policemen for help, who merely told me "Go."

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/network-anchors-leave-egypt-amid-crackdown/

Network anchors fleeing Egypt. So good of them to pop in for a day.

DSGamer wrote:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/network-anchors-leave-egypt-amid-crackdown/

Network anchors fleeing Egypt. So good of them to pop in for a day.

In that journalists are apparently being specifically targeted by bands of armed thugs, I'd say it's the wise choice to leave the country.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/network-anchors-leave-egypt-amid-crackdown/

Network anchors fleeing Egypt. So good of them to pop in for a day.

In that journalists are apparently being specifically targeted by bands of armed thugs, I'd say it's the wise choice to leave the country.

Why did they go there, though? Either you're a journalist who should be in a war zone and can actually do the job on the ground or you're a celebrity and you should stay in New York and report the news.

DSGamer wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/network-anchors-leave-egypt-amid-crackdown/

Network anchors fleeing Egypt. So good of them to pop in for a day.

In that journalists are apparently being specifically targeted by bands of armed thugs, I'd say it's the wise choice to leave the country.

Why did they go there, though? Either you're a journalist who should be in a war zone and can actually do the job on the ground or you're a celebrity and you should stay in New York and report the news.

Because they thought the protesters were about to win, and they were going to witness something like the Berlin wall coming down?

Badferret wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/network-anchors-leave-egypt-amid-crackdown/

Network anchors fleeing Egypt. So good of them to pop in for a day.

In that journalists are apparently being specifically targeted by bands of armed thugs, I'd say it's the wise choice to leave the country.

Why did they go there, though? Either you're a journalist who should be in a war zone and can actually do the job on the ground or you're a celebrity and you should stay in New York and report the news.

Because they thought the protesters were about to win, and they were going to witness something like the Berlin wall coming down?

No, I know the answer. Just annoys me. They should have sent people who would actual practice journalism.

Badferret wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/network-anchors-leave-egypt-amid-crackdown/

Network anchors fleeing Egypt. So good of them to pop in for a day.

In that journalists are apparently being specifically targeted by bands of armed thugs, I'd say it's the wise choice to leave the country.

Why did they go there, though? Either you're a journalist who should be in a war zone and can actually do the job on the ground or you're a celebrity and you should stay in New York and report the news.

Because they thought the protesters were about to win, and they were going to witness something like the Berlin wall coming down?

I feel like I should coin a new word - Journotourism. Still, this broke down exactly as I thought it would. Cooper and Amanpour are real journalists; Williams and Couric have always just been talking heads.

NBC's guy is Richard Engel. We can assume he's there as he doesn't mind being in danger. Overall my point on that is that Couric and Williams looked ridiculous going there and ridiculous coming back so quickly. Either they're journalists or they're desk jockies. Don't pretend to be something you aren't or else you risk looking opportunistic or bad at your job.

Kenneth Cole decided to stick their proverbial foot in their mouths.

Leading to this amazing fake twitter

Parents of Hiroshima -- you'll melt when you see our new kids collection! #KennethColeTweets
MrDeVil909 wrote:

You know what makes me positive about the events in Egypt? Stuff like this.

It's a people determined, and united. I hope the rest of the world learns the lesson they are teaching.

I've been looking through a lot of these links, and I'm surprised by one thing. There are almost NO women anywhere. I never realized Egypt was a country of only men. I remember seeing similar images from the protests in Iran, and there seemed to be many women pictured in those images.

Is the culture of Egypt such that if these people do get what they're after, are the women going to disappear from the streets?

WizKid wrote:

Kenneth Cole decided to stick their proverbial foot in their mouths.

Every time Kenneth Cole tweets a PR agency makes half a mil in crisis communication fees.

Early on most people were observing that there were a lot of women and children, especially at the 'Million man march.'

I think that since it turned violent they are staying out of harm's way, unsurprisingly. And that picture I linked is mostly of Muslim's praying, men and women do that separately anyway.

LarryC wrote:

The reason that there is as much violence as there already is is because the Egyptian people are not completely willing to sacrifice their lives for this cause.

At least 150 people have died, yet they still come out every day. I don't think you can say they are unwilling to sacrifice their lives, they don't need to be stupid to do it.

Al Jazeera just showed a timeline of Clinton's and Obama's statements as they evolved day by day. It's both funny and sad.

There's an enormous thread on Metafilter about this. I posted that email in its entirety there, garion, with a link back here. It seemed worth broader exposure.

MrDeVil909:

There's a difference between being reasonably willing, and being completely willing. Egyptians have not yet crossed that barrier. To put it simply, they don't think that it's literally better to die than to continue to live in Mubarak's Egypt. They prefer to stay home to defend their properties and the lives of themselves and their families because they still think it's worth defending.

On the face of it, complete and utter devotion to the cause of ousting Mubarak sounds stupid, but it really is the only real option they have to secure a decisive victory.

It doesn't help that they've allowed their collective emotions to get the better of them. The police may have been in cahoots with Mubarak, but it was still a bad idea to destroy the police stations. It's a bad idea to start throwing rocks. This goes beyond the self. When I was in a similar protest action, we did not tolerate anyone with us who was prone to throwing rocks or fists. It ran counter to our objectives.

You stayed, prepared to die, and got with the program, or we're not going to stand anywhere near you.

Malor wrote:

There's an enormous thread on Metafilter about this. I posted that email in its entirety there, garion, with a link back here. It seemed worth broader exposure.

Thanks, I'll let my friend know. It may give her a little comfort that his writing is being spread while he's still in custody. She is really freaked for him.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"

"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

The Israelis are pissed!

This based on rumors that the US is working toward helping Mubarak step down immediately.

Man, the Israelis sure do hate free Arabs.

Seth:

I get the feeling that they just hate Arabs in general. Their Palestinian prisoners are not free, but they hate them just the same.

It continues to surprise me greatly that, with all the American aid they've been given, Israelis have the nerve and the gall to react this way to American policy. It's like the tail wagging the dog. If nothing else, Israel's behavior towards its ally has always undermined America's position of strength.

LarryC wrote:

It's [like] the tail wagging the dog.

You just described the relationship between Israel and the US. I put in brackets the unneccesary word.