My post that followed yours was the presentation of another point of view - nothing more nothing less.

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

If you can get through, let her know that our thoughts are with her and that we all hope she gets through this o.k. My mother-in-law was finalizing a trip to Egypt this spring before this broke.

thanks, ace.

i just saw a post from her that one of the other folk who's been trapped in the apartment is now being held by the military. he was initially "identified" as being an iranian and holding an iranian passport. he's from cairo.

i don't have any details at this point...he was one of the people whose presence in the apartment made me think that things were manageable.

this is not great. hoping for the best.


edit: so he goes out a lot and brings a camera with him. a photographer, you see. today, that's apparently enough to get you nabbed.

Yes, the personal dimension here is so important to help ground us. I have been following your friend's reports as well. It is just this personal dimension that resonates most. It means more to me than a hundred rhetorical fusillades. Right here in this thread in this forum. To feel us pause and...hope...simply sharing hope...for the best possible outcome - in human terms - is as close as I will ever get to prayer. And I share every hope you have expressed here, rb.

rb-

It seems evident to me that the sudden gathering of pro-Mubarak supporters and the violence which resulted in their presence is suspect. Rhetorically, where were these "supporters" for the first 10 days? The last 24 hours seems to have placed writing on the wall, following the model of suppression used by Iran last year:

1) Close off the outside world to isolate the demonstrators.
2) Begin to control the way the world views the demonstration.
3) If these don't work, only the government has guns.

Unfortunately, Mubarak now has the upper hand. Tomorrow is going to go only one of two ways. Just know that I share your concerns and while this might not mean much, my prayers are with your friend.

---------EDIT-------------

I've watched the videos of reporters being attacked and fleeing from covering the events. Not knowing what is being screamed at them while they flee is frustrating, as it might reveal who or why. I can't see why anyone in support of regime change would want a reporter gone, so logic dictates that those who want the regime to remain are those attacking reporters...and there's only one reason they would do that. It makes me sad that these people arrived in peaceful resolve for a different future and this is the response.

It means a lot, Cimarron. The personal is what binds us.
My candles are lit in hope & prayer.

the bbc blog is updating quite regularly.

BBC News - Egypt unrest

the column on the left aggregates information from various wire services and twitter and other sources...it's less repetitive than twitter so easier to follow and get a sense of things that are happening (as opposed to getting a sense of how instant reactions are forming amongst people you cannot see or know anything about...twitter is so so strange). the attempt to eliminate observers is proceeding pretty systematically it seems. and there have been arrests of people associated with the protest leadership. surveillance is obvious excedingly high.


===

my friend could, i think, use all the energy and hopes directed her way. this is a scary moment.

it is a hall of mirrors, the information-scape around cairo.
the gap between what appears granular from the various perspectives that make it onto al jazeera, for example, and the micro-situations in a particular block of cairo just around the corner from where the cameras are...it's a chasm. and the information-scape is full of them.
what we know, what we don't....the boundary is so intimate. al jaz uses cameras that are high up and wide angle, so you get an overview; they use telephotos to narrow the field. i just saw a tank wheel around moving from one brown geometrical space toward another; black shapes that correspond to human beings moving out of the way...armored personnel carriers and a wave of people rushing forward that might be happening now or might have happened yesterday or both. you're there but you don't know anything. you're watching like a little god except that you can't reach through, can't change anything. you're just watching.

i couldn't point out on a map where my friend is exactly. there's stuff happening outside her building that isn't on camera. when i look at the gmail chat list i can see that she's online--but she said something about sending an email, presumably about hamdy and the others (who?) that were arrested this morning by the military from her apartment/circle. so i don't bother her. there's chasms in the most intimate of spaces. sometimes they feel every bit the size of the bigger ones that separate what's in frame from what's out.

in the end, though, she's the one in danger. not me. i just watch.

finally people in congress are starting to talk openly about cutting off the money that the united states has given mubarak. but i don't know what'll happen from that.

it's all very strange. disconcerting. i think most things are like this for someone or another. this one just happens to involve me at a remove. not much of a remove, really, but still.

The difference, ace?

Social networking.

And one woman who was brave enough to speak out about 30 years of corruption and police brutality and the resulting infringement of basic human rights and dignity......

YouTube - Meet Asmaa Mahfouz and the vlog that Helped Spark the Revolution

YouTube - Meet Asmaa Mahfouz and the vlog that Helped Spark the Revolution

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/wo...-letter02.html

Clearly, if you think it was just economics, you're in your "black and white" mode.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

And McDonald's with free wifi!

I think the speed of how these matters will play out is impacted by social networking. I think the underlying cause, in a word, is economics. I think the intensity is correlated to the level of economic discontent.

ace..listen to Asmaa Mahfouz's video...it is about human rights, not economics.

And, ace, if you are going to claim that the uprising in Egypt validates the Bush doctrine, at least understand what the doctrine was all about.....

....preemptive strikes against regimes that were perceived to be hostile or dangerous to the US.....and/or regimes that were theocratic and harbored terrorists.

Neither was the case in Egypt.

Which might explain why many Bush neo-cons are continuing to make baseless claims about the Muslim Brotherhood as a driving force of the uprising.

To suggest that the uprising is the Bush Doctrine at work is a stretch, to say the least.

so, essentially, when a society is still strong and organized enough to act up in the name of justice and freedom on their own behalf, they are responding to 'economics' or some other equally expansive brand of political discontent and need to realize that democracy takes time under the gentle but firm aegis of american stewardship

but when they are weak and disorganized (ie, expedient), they are ready for america to bring them democracy by force

got it. got it. got it. must remember, must remember.

Perhaps you missed the very first part of her video.

Also, what is more basic to human rights, than being able to feed and provide for your family?

I gave the text from an actual Bush speech. Using his words, including his complement to Egypt and his urging to them to set an example in the region for political reform.


"Bush neo-cons"? Beck is not Bush nor does he speak for Bush. In fact there were many far right people who did not support Bush's push for "democracy" in Iraq. Even I was on the fence on the issue at various times, however, Bush lead based on his convictions even when most doubted what he was doing.

I think Bush actually gave Reagan the credit. Also from the speech cited above:



---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

The above is pretty convoluted.

First, America will have almost nothing directly to do with internal struggles for freedom or a voice within another nation.

The reason America was directly involved in Iraq was because of "our" (not yours specifically is understood) desire to remove Saddam Hussein. After removing him from power we had two choice, "nation build" or allow chaos. Bush with the urging of people like Colin "you break it, you fix it" Powell, went the "nation building" route.

The changes going on in other nations in the ME, not getting any publicity, do not have any direct US involvement. People around the world can see on their own that there is a better way, and that it involves the ability to play a role in self-determination - in a word, freedom.

To live without fear of oppression by the government?

To have the right to speak out against the government?

To desire a government that is not rife with corruption?


I'm not referring to Beck, but rather to guys like John Bolton, one of the so-called intellectual architects of the Bush Doctrine....and Huckabee and other Republicans who are fear-mongering and grossly overstating the role of the Muslim Brotherhood.

GOP hopefuls warn of an Islamist Egypt - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com

Here is what showed up on my screen:

By what measure do you come to the conclusion of "grossly overstating"? Isn't that an opinion, one way or the other. Bolton's view seems to be that the Muslim Brotherhood may be in a position to take advantage of the situation - which no reasonable person would dispute.

It's not so convoluted. It's the arrogance that is behind conservative (and not so conservative) American opinion. When it is expedient for us, we back internal struggles for freedom. For example, during Iran's elections in 2009 - I don't recall any claims being made in the American media at that time that they should remain calm and patient. But when it could be potentially difficult for us, we suddenly become concerned about stability. And, of course, when it becomes our interest to invade, we can't be stopped until the target is completely and utterly broken. Woops.

What's more, it's unbelievably arrogant to purport that the protesters in Egypt just don't understand the economic situation in their own country. Surely you can see that.

Does it seem like the media has an agenda here to anybody else? They give 24/7 news coverage to a minority percentage of the population who are protesting. Yet, there may be to other 95% that are doing fine under the current government and aren't protesting. And then when some pro-government protestors come out, the media declares that they are being paid by the government (any proof to back that up?), and that there is no way that anyone in the country could be in favor of the current leaders...

I just read this article explaining the American right wing media's take on all of this. I am astounded. This sort of nonsense just doesn't appear to be part of the discourse outside of the wacky hall of mirrors that is Fox News and associates.

Middle East unrest according to Glenn Beck and friends | World news | guardian.co.uk

Neo-cons like Bolton want to have it both ways.

They're all about the peoples right to self-determination UNTIL it might include an opposition party they dont like (or, in their words, is Anti-American).

In a democracy, no reasonable person would dispute the right of the people to elect their own representation not representation that foreign interests (ie the US) deem better for the people.

Reasonable people understand that the Muslim Brotherhood has a (relatively small) following in Egypt and will undoubtedly win seats in parliament if and when there are elections.

That is how democracy works....like it or not.

Reasonable people who understand Egyptian politics (as opposed to Bolton) also know that the Muslim Brotherhood does not have anywhere near the support of the majority (or even a plurality) of the people....and virtually no chance at the presidency, where the real power lies.

Bolton, Huckabee et al have demonstrated their anti-democracy stripes....the right of the Egyptian people is not as important as what is best for the US (and Israel).....and to that end, they play the "radical religious regime" or "terrorist sympathizer" card.

Well, Charlatan, it wouldn't be such an issue if Muslims weren't so dangerous. :rolleyes:

Fundamentalists with conflicting views fear each other the most.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------

Part of the problem is the assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical/terrorist organization. They're a conservative Islamic organization.

This is simply more Islamophobia.

why isn't al jazeera available here?

How do you say ?All the news that?s fit to print? in Arabic?

today should be most interesting.

a reported quiet except for the helicopters overhead. the helicopters turned up in the guardian thereafter. as i write, things are taking shape in tahrir square. skirmishes at the edges. largely peaceful up to now.

negociations underway to be rid of mubarak

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/wo...lomacy.html?hp

There was a change in administration, if not for the change I think our national view of these matters would be more consistent.

From the conservative point of view the first priority, typically being most vocal and most supporting of, those causes which are viewed as in our nation's interest, because of that outlook there has been and will continue to be more interest in the ME than in other areas.

If you refer to the invasion of Iraq we been through that thousands of times, otherwise I don't know what invasion(s) you are referring to.

I have not said that they don't understand it. My critique is towards the American intellectual types who present this conflict in a way that you would think only a Phd. could explain it, it ain't that complicated. When people can not provide for their family, while they see a ruling class failing to manage or even exploiting national wealth - they get a bit upset. The last straw was the move to end food and energy subsidies.

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

True. I don't think that is unique to what you call Neo-cons. Hence, "I" want you to be free, but "I" want you to do it my way or "I" want to eat cake and not gain weight. People want it both ways, but the real question is when they can not have it both ways, what do they do? People who truly support free election will recognize legitimate winners of elections, however that does not mean you have to trust them.

We are total opposites. I see absolutely no problem with Americans opposing those who are Anti-American. Again, the real question is how the conflict is managed. If an Anti-American sentiment is just that and nothing else, there does not need to be any problem. However, if an Anti-American sentiment translates into actions that are harmful to America, I think we need to do something about it.

We can have an opinion.

I don't dispute that, and I like the way democracy works.

I also like the free flow of information so people can make informed decisions. For example, people should know that the election of the Muslim Brotherhood candidates may have consequences.

History supports Bolton's concerns. And, his concerns are his, he has no official role in our government.

You made an illogical leap. To be concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean one has to be anti-democracy. And there is legitimate cause for concern...but that does not mean there has to be a problem...but the basis for concern is real.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

Perhaps it is not Islamophobia, but not really understanding their message. I admit that I don't and I have many questions.

To start, does the Muslim Brotherhood support a woman's right to vote? Education? Holding elected office? Owning property? Driving? Being able to choose her clothing?

You forgot to ask if they support publicly funded abortions, lesbian marriage, lesbian parenting, lesbian adoption, wage protection for single mothers, welfare for single mothers, and probably a few other questions that would fit under the umbrella of women's rights within the context of conservatism.

But that might open a can of worms here.

What I will tell you is that many people consider the Muslim Brotherhood a conservative Islamic organization. They aren't on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations.

I would suggest it is Islamophobia if one were to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood is radical and terrorist. They aren't.

Can sista's join the brotherhood?

Sorry, couldn't help it.

ace---sometimes things are complicated. sometimes it's between arrogant and ridiculous to use what appears to be some personal sense you've got of being persecuted by complexity to impose simple-minded pseudo-explanations on phenomena in the world---like what's happening in egypt----just to swat away the devil of complexity so you feel better. the thread is about egypt and tunisia and the ways that is spreading--it is not about your counter-factual realities based on your aesthetic preference for the simplistic, nor is it about arbitrary assertions that in some bizarre-o alternate universe this mangled thing you call the bush doctrine---which you don't seem to actually know anything about which doubtless makes supporting it easier----was somehow correct about the middle east---in fact it has nothing to say.

the bottom line here----the ONLY point you're making---is that you don't like the obama administration. and you're willing to go to any lengths to find a way to repeat that simple simple position that you like.

i am interested to watch mubarak's house of cards coming apart. i would hope that he is forced out of power if he doesn't wake up and resign. there are reports that the opposition is working on a draft of a new constitution. this is necessary because any opposition movement that comes to power has to dissolve parliament, which is totally ndp because it was elected by fraud. systematic election fraud---that amplifies a sense of grievance that can make of something like food prices starting to spiral explosive. but you'd have to actually look at something beyond the backward reactionary pages of bloomberg and research the history of actually existing egypt over the past 30 years to know that. and that's complicated. better to stick with repeating "i don't like barack obama" and "the bush people were right" because it lets you avoid the world.

no-one really gives a shit about conservative paranoia concerning the muslim brotherhood at this point. it's really just thinly-disguised racism. like so much conservative "thinking"...but it's simple.

people are nervous...there's alot of uncertainty. food is getting harder to come by; businesses are shut down. egyptian tv is not that different from fox---it presents a fantasy world structured around authoritarian/conservative feel-good memes. because of what happened earlier this week with the secret police creating "pro-mubarak" goon squads, people are jumpy. and there is sporadic violence still around the edges.

it's not simple.
nothing is simple.

Ha...

Anyway, at this point, I think the Muslim Brotherhood is a bit of a bogeyman. The what-ifs regarding the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is hardly a reason to support an authoritarian government.

why pay?
watch al jaz now:

Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English

still far better than anything produced in the u.s. of a. on this.

One thing which struck me from the young lady's call-to-arms video (posted above) was her technique for encouragement. It was clearly cultural and very much, "if you don't do this, you are not a man." It was pervasive throughout the entire message, to question one's manliness if they showed reluctance.

I suppose Mubarak has been conditioned his entire life to this line of thinking. "Surrender is not manly". So, I think there's a lot of that going on with him right now. Then there's family honor, tribal honor (if applicable), shia/sunni honor, the general personal arrogance which comes from being the headshit for 30 years, and the 82-year-old "no young whipper-snapper is going to tell me what to do" crotchetiness.

This man has some serious humility hurdles to jump in order to do what is right. Frankly, I don't think he has it in him. It looks like good ole stubbornness at this point.


---edited---
...and what happens if there is no departure on the "Day of Departure"? That's going to be a kick in the nuts to the movement. Perhaps, Mubarak thinks if he can get through the Day of Departure it's clear sailing?

biggest demos yet in alexandria; massive demo in cairo...

i dont think the day of departure is more than an expression of momentum--building; i dont see it as working as an ultimatum. what's clear from this week is that mubarak is on the defensive and has been forced---i think---to back away from the historical pattern of his regime faced with opposition---suppression, lie, etc.----which everyone was treated to wednesday & thursday.

i think people are hunkered down for a long fight if need be.

what i expect might be more deflating would be the proposal that's floating around in the rumorsphere of mubarak hanging around as a "figurehead"

it's an interesting moment....

Translation: Let's make Mubarak hear our voices. We all, one hand, requested one thing, leave leave leave...Down Down Hosny Mubarak, Down Down Hosny Mubarak.. The people want to dismantle the regime....He is to go, we are not going... He is to go, we won't leave.... We all, one hand, ask one thing, leave leave.

So Mubarak Government people in a diplomatic car runs over 20 protesters. I spent most of yesterday watching live as Mubarak thugs threw molotovs at people, and heard gunshots from an unseen Coaxial Machinegun.

Honestly who would want to throw their support behind Mubarak at this point?

Please don't give me that BS about the Muslim Brotherhood. Their entire leadership has been rounded up, and they receive very little support from the people who have lived in a completely secular government since the 1840s. The Westboro Baptist group garners more support in America than the MB does in Egypt.

Thanks, Seaver, for reiterating that this is nonsense that some are spewing about this. There are some who would prefer to distract from the real issues by playing up the influence of "Islamists" as a global menace where there is little to be concerned about. It's nothing short of propaganda.

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------

The video is disgusting and alarming. I wasn't disgusted or alarmed this much since that Beck video I watched where he says the world is catching on fire.

The economic damage this is causing Egypt may be be impossible to recover from. There's much more at stake for the average citizen than these protests and skirmishes. Perhaps "collapse the system from within" is the unseen strategy at work. Artificially amplified hunger and water shortages may soon follow... just in time for a savior to emerge. The ripple effect among Egypt's neighbors is equally alarming. My bet is on the unseen hand.

The Egyptian economy was already in shambles. They had 40% unemployment... that's almost double ours from the Great Depression. There's no unseen hand here. A shit economy means everyone under 30 basically has no income or hope of any, an oppressive regime ensures no one can complain about the fact everyone under 30 has no job, and the fact they see the youth empowering themselves elsewhere using non-state controlled technology which didn't exist a decade ago all cumulate to empower those previously without.

i find it peculiar to read stuff from conservatives who like so much the language of freedom and liberty and all that when it doesn't mean anything getting all fluttery jittery about a movement in egypt that's demanding freedom and try to reduce it to some crude hydraulic affair prompted exclusively by price fluctuations. seaver's got a far more important cause right---which aligns this with events like mai 68 in paris in particular. an oligarchy centered on the ndp/mubarak has plundered egypt for 30 years under the figleaf of a state of emergency, selling it to the world as standing fast against imaginary Enemies like those that populate the fever dreams of the glenn beck set----but maybe that's what makes american conservatives nervous, really--the image of people revolting against an oligarchy. could happen here and then where would you be? stuff this freedom business back in the bottle before its too late.

it appears that the mubarak clique has resigned en masse from the ndp.
i think the walls are crumbling.

My point exactly... it's getting ripe(er) for the picking. It's already a mess... and suppose it's prodded over the edge by numerous and seemingly harmless factions working in concert. A poke and a nudge in all the right places, the economy suddenly, totally, collapses, and utter chaos becomes instantaneous. Enter the benevolent savior... who is most at the ready? It's a house of cards...perhaps by design.

Are you suggesting the revolution in Egypt was designed by some "savior" waiting in the wings and not a grass roots uprising?

You're ignoring the institutions that exist in Egypt, unlike Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East.

Most notably, an independent judiciary and a strong military that has no ties to any religious groups but a vested interest in the economy and therefore stability.

The country also has a long and strong tradition of not having interest in a fundamentalist theocracy.

The students, the workers (of all classes), the military and even the Muslim Brotherhood all have a vested interested in ensuring stability.

IMO, your just mimicking the right wing fears, particularly Beck and his warning of "coming caliphate."

Events appear calculated and orchestrated. The M.O. is quite familiar.

Only a savior only in the sense that a system, politics, religious direction, or all of the above may step in and save the day. Not a person or messiah... at least not in the sincere meaning.

And since you're asking me questions that I have not yet answered, but you are telling me I've forgotten or ignored something regarding the question you have not received an answer to, please feel free to ask more questions of me for you to answer in advance. It's entertaining... much like your response to the parallels I mentioned regarding the Iranian revolution. I stand by my positions. There are enough facts to support the feasibility of my views... we'll see in time. (won't we?) I hope that I'm wrong.

Please tell me what parallels to the Iranian revolution... that would be the one that was organized by the Ayatollah Khomeini, with the support of religious extremists student groups and a compliant military.

There is no similar MO. The students and workers in Egypt are primarily secular and the military is not in cahoots with, or support any extremist religious leader or group.

Insinuations are facts. It could be so we must treat it as if it actually was.

It is funny how quickly praise for democracy turns into warnings about democracy when it comes time for democracy.

Maybe they'll install an American-style democracy. You know, the kind where the wealthy trick the poor into orienting their political philosophy around finding ways to avoid making rich people uncomfortable.

egypt already has an american-style distribution of wealth

A private estate called Egypt | Salwa Ismail | Comment is free | The Guardian

maybe that's what has the right all buggy about this.
well that and fear of democracy when people aren't content any more to live in a financial oligarchy that mandates a collective liking of the word democracy.

Here is an article the explains why the military also has a vested interest in economic stability.

While this may not mirror an American-style democracy, the Egyptian military is not the Iranian Revolution Guard or has any interest in becoming a guardian of an extremist Islamic theocracy....and the Muslim Brotherhood in the parliament would not be in a position to be a Guardian Council, even if that were the goal.

the obama administration has placed all their marbles with the military and the reasons for doing that are getting clearer every day.

Egypt's Democratic Mirage | Foreign Affairs

another perspective on the same unfortunate situation, but one focused more on the ndp:

The NDP is dead; long live the NDP? - Opinion - Ahram Online

this is not some conspiratorially organized thing---the glennbeckian interpretation is the stuff for the know-nothing set.

rather, this is the way authoritarian continuity could be maintained across a popular revolt with the full collusion of the united states. no need to let this democracy business go too far---after all there are corporate interests and co-operative military sales and training relationships that are of great profit to lots of Important People within the visible oligarchy in egypt and the less visible one in the united states that runs the show---so there's no real problem with packaging up the democratic aspirations of the egyptian people and sending them back to jail, where they lived under mubarak...

I do not know where they stand on issues related to personal freedom. It is not clear.

Just as I would not support and have concerns regarding extreme right wing Christians who may want to restrict personal freedoms the same would be true for any other religious group who might want to impose their religious views on my or anyone's personal life.

I know the concept of "personal freedom" can be a bit vague on the margins, but without splitting hairs, I assume most understand the types of things I am referring to.

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

How wrong you are! Having a right of self determination is simple, both on a national scale and on a personal level. You either support self determination or you don't. With what you post here I would think you would be 100% on board with that. Is your issue that nations should have that right but not individual people?

The underlying values of self determination are very consistent with simple basic human rights - in my view only those who want to control others oppose self determination. I am against anyone or any organization opposed to self determination. No Phd. required.

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

This is a very important point that American liberals don't get. I think Obama administration's handling of Mubarak clearly illustrates this problem. In addition, one really has to parse the words from Obama's administration to even begin to understand what they want and even then you find they take every opportunity to leave their message open to the interpretation of the listener.

ace, I guess my confusion stems from the fact that you have all this talk about the Muslim Brotherhood when they're not even really a concern in terms of the influence and the current state of affairs.

Even beyond that, the concern with them I think is a bit biased, and I can only assume that it's because they're Muslim.

Religious political parties aren't new. There are many Christian ones, many of which have members who hold seats, if not high office.

What's the big deal, anyway? The U.S. is used to dealing with people of different religious and political associations. Let's see, the two that come to mind are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Islamic absolute monarchy) and the People's Republic of China (a communist single-party state). So what gives? There shouldn't be any worry about the Muslim Brotherhood if the U.S. has a history of diplomatic and economic relations with such states.

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't even on the list of international terrorist organizations. Isn't that were radical Muslim organizations go?

The things that concern you are going to be different than the things that concern me.

When Pat Robinson ran for President in the US his odds of winning were very small, I still had concerns and I talked about them.

How more clear can I be - I don't understand them. I admit ignorance. I seek answers. I want to understand if my concerns are legitimate or not. Making the assumption that I am an Islamophobe is not helpful.

Not the issue.

What gives? Nothing. The conservatives I respect are consistent on the issues of freedom, self determination and human rights. We encourage and see the human race moving in that direction. Even within this country, we have had our issue and they take time to resolve.

Wouldn't it be nice to move away from the "terrorist" or not "terrorist" view of things and perhaps this is a reflection of that. And perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood can be a force for good in Egypt and the ME - I don't know - but it appears they have a spot light and an opportunity to communicate their vision to the Egyptian people and to the world. If it were me, I would take full advantage of the opportunity they have been presented.

Let me be clear: I don't consider your position Islamophobia. You have legitimate concerns regarding some of their political and social stances, especially from the perspective of a Westerner. However, I'm not sure you've elaborated enough or even explored the issues specifically.

My point is that there are those who seem to be vying for a kind of hysterics about an organization that happens to be Muslim in a country that happens to be 90% Muslim. These same critics are doing so to the degree that it's preferable to them to maintain a corrupt authoritarian regime out of fear that a Muslim political organization might exert their influence in the wake of a political upheaval despite said organization's stances on Islamic reform and democratic systems.

I suspect the Muslim Brotherhood was rounded up in Egypt in fear that they might force a true and legitimate election in the country.

But America isn't concerned about Egyptian democracy; they're worried about Islamic influence.

The information I have "explored" has been one sided and I know it. I have questions, and if you recall my first post on the subject of the Islamic Brotherhood I presented a line of questions on one of many subjects.

We can not deal with un-named "critics" but we could address concerns of people who post here.

What a charge. I can not find any serious justification or support for the above statement. However, there is concern about, war, stability in the ME, Israel, human rights and basic freedoms. Seems it would be pretty easy for any group , religious or not, to state where they stand.

on egypt....it's self-evident that the americans do not support the aspirations of the people who set this revolt into motion.
it appears that the americans support is a slightly nicer form of authoritarian rule, the mubarak system without mubarak because that suits the realpolitik interests---central among which is acquiescence to the obscenity of american policy toward palestine/israel and the big money traffick in weapons systems and training that the republican patronage system the rest of us call the mililtary-industrial system enjoys with egypt.

right now it looks like the americans have encouraged the military to impose an old-skool structural gambit on the opposition: agree to "negociations" but require as a condition of playing the game that the opposition transform its own organizational structure--become centralized----which in this case means become fragmented---because this was a bottom-up popular revolt and not a leninist-style operation. there's no central organization. there's no a priori agreement as to who "we" are that would enable the appointment of a small group of the same old fucks who would be able to go into a little room and meet with another small group of the same old fucks.

consequence 1: the suleiman regime which is the same as the mubarak regime without the person of mubarak at its head really is in a position to appear willing to talk and compromise. however
consequence 2: it is also in a position to say there's no-one to talk to.
consequence 3: it is able to start returning things to a semblance of normal and to benefit from the above 2 appearances in the doing.

the americans are going blah blah blah this is complicated we have to g.....o......s......l.....o.......w.........l.........y because if we dont all this democracy and freedom stuff could get out of hand.

the united states is here occupying a position not that far from that ned beatty's character occupied in "network" except with only bland speech and nothing close to tht fabulous tirade that begins "you are fucking with the forces of nature, mister beale, and you will atone...."

there's no reason why suleiman would have to organize elections. there's no reason he would have to stand down. it wouldn't suit american interests. those interests would be perfectly well served with mubarak lite. so that's what i think they're supporting.

if it came down to it the americans have demonstrated themselves willing to set the aspirations for self-determination of millions of people on fire if it suits the interests of the oligarchy that runs the show--the national security state, the energy combine----and they'll do it again. and they'll do it again with the american right supporting them, all the while nattering away about "freedom" and "self-determination" which are simple except that no-one on the right knows what they mean. they just like the way they sound.

i hope i'm wrong about egypt. i really do.
and i don't have any ideas about what the opposition could do to play around this gambit.
i think what they're doing is the only option---stay in tahrir square and organize another wave of actions, one that escalates from the previous wave.

but it'll be hard to do because there's the return to "normal" and vague statements about compromise etc etc.

so the opposition faces the prospect of having **its** revolt sold out while they watch and there's nothing they'll be able to do about it.

like i said, i hope i'm wrong. sometimes i like being wrong. this is one of those times.


this says it better and goes a lot further:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB08Ak01.html

Please understand that when I speak of the Muslim Brotherhood's support (or lack there of) I have studied Egypt in depth. I concentrated my studies in school surrounding Lebanon and Egypt, while ensuring I hit more or less every other country out there.

Egypt is secular. Egypt has been secular since the 1840s when the Egyptian Generals wrested general independence from the Caliphate. They have been secular almost as long as we have, and more importantly their population is more fervently secular than ours in opposing theological laws to be put in place.

The Muslim Brotherhood tried an uprising against the Government in the late '70s, attacking a Police Headquarters with grenades/rpgs/AK's. They were chased off by unarmed civilians who proceeded to beat them with stones and sticks resulting in almost all of the attackers being caught. The civilians were hailed by the Government as patriots, but when asked they all hated Mubarak... they just hated the MB more.

By propping up Mubarak we're hurting our cause. Egypt has a massive effect on other Muslim countries in terms of culture, economy, and population. We should throw our support behind the democratic cause and help the domino's of freedom spread... not just give the terrorist and Islamic theocratic factions fuel for their rants about our hypocrisy.

here is glenn greewald on yesterday's ny times coverage of egypt. he says some of what i've been saying for a while but does it in print:

The Egyptian mirror - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com


it is possible---entirely so----that if the opposition refuses to go along with the game that is being set up and maintains pressure that they could change the game again. it seems to me, though, that any capitulation to the g....o......s......l.....o.......w........l........y "pragmatism" of the americans and their clients in the egyptian military is de facto a concession of defeat.
it may well require another massive mobilization.
but i think it's possible.

Let me preface this statement with the fact that I don't have a dog in this fight. I am really making an observation and looking to those who have more experience on the matter to provide some sort of context.

In 1989 (I think it was), 300,000 Estonians gathered in their capital and demanded an end to the communist rule that held them. While that number is not that impressive, it becomes striking when one realizes that represented 33% of their entire citizenry. It isn't hard to recognize that as a massive wave of change. When 1/3 of your population drops what they are doing, travels to the capital, and demands change - it's safe to say a majority of the population wants what they want (many can't travel).

3 million Egyptians have come together on several days and demanded political change, but that represents only 3% of their population. How closely do their voices resemble the 97% who did not assemble in protest?

The American administration has been off message from the start here, constantly sliding the goal line. That is surprising since, IMO, Egypt is our most critical ally in the region. One would think they would have prefabricated messages for these sorts of eventualities. To this point, the father of one of my best friends was a speech writer for President Kennedy. He was instructed to write two speeches for the Cuba missile crisis - the one that was read, and the one that wasn't read - the one that meant things didn't go well. The Kennedy administration had fabricated both outcomes in speeches and the entire administration was aware of "the message," regardless of the outcome. Incidentally, it was chilling to get to read the speech which was never read... So, this administration seemed unprepared for what appears to have been common knowledge - this rise of the Egyptian people against Mubarak.

Perhaps the administration would have acted differently if it had been 30 million people marching? Is it possible the administration reacted the way they did because the numbers weren't there? Does anyone have any insight into any of this?

the entire population of cairo is a bit over 20 Million. It's chaos as it is on a normal day in cairo, and you think that 30M can be sardine canned into a tiny square? Thats 1.5 times more than the entire population of australia. you'd also like to factor in that many would not have come out in fear of retribution and intimidation should these protests fail.

I have no doubt that if mubarak stays and completes his term till the elections, that he'll go after the protesters with a vengeance, and pocket a few more billion along the way.

i have many egyptian friends, and have met hundreds if not thousands of egyptians in daily life over the years whether ive met them in the mosques, or at work, or in the streets, but im yet to meet one who loves what mubarak has done for them over the last 30 years. I think that's a fair demographic of what egyptians out of the country think about him. they're the lucky ones that can voice their opinions. the unlucky bastards are the ones still protesting in the Square.

I wasn't trying to suggest that 30M should show up in Tahrir square. I was thinking they would gather in their regional capitals.

there's no consensus about the numbers involved. no-one was really able to count. a couple million in cairo, approximately a million in alexandria---but there were mobilizations in every city in egypt.

at the same time, it's the case that political actions in capitals have disproportionate weight.

everything that i've read and heard from people who are in cairo points to overwhelming popular support for the ouster of mubarak, even if many people are not willing to put themselves physically on the line by turning out at tahrir square. the levels of logistical support is pretty remarkable--you don't hear a whole lot about it in the press because most of the talking heads are pinned in what they take to be "the center" of the "action" and are interested in the type of story that fits well with the micro-attention span of television viewers. but the popular support for the protesters is pretty remarkable---consider for example the fact that people are opening their homes for folk, feeding them, letting them use bathrooms, that sort of thing...

beyond that, though, there is a sense of things i suppose.
no social movement is exactly equivalent to the number of people who turn out for this or that action.
political mobilization is not like a table. it is not like a thing.

Please understand, I'm trying to make sense of two things:

1) What is the voice of the 97%? You guys believe it is in chorus with the 3%. I can accept that, as you have better insight. rb-I do take stock in the logistics of it. Many policital movements have had silent partners - the underground railroad, the movement of jews out of Poland, etc. I don't believe the 3% is the sum total of those who want change, I'm just trying to understand why 3 on Tuesday wasn't 10 on Friday? I don't doubt the people's resolve, I just want to make certain I understand their choice to remain only logistically helpful - silent partners.

2) What was the motivation for the administration's reaction, was it simply numeric evaluation? That seems like something an American administration would do.

well, it's kinda hard to "speak for" or about people who do not turn out for a demo but who might support an end to dictatorship. the generating of a sense of momentum is a basic task of political action, just as generating a sense of normal is a basic task of the dominant order.

today there are tens of thousands of people out on tahrir square. they are not having the american-backed continuation of the mubarak oligarchy. nor should they.
egyptian state tv is showing suleiman looking business-like at some meeting and footage of a bridge over the nile.

Live blog Feb 8 - Egypt protests | Al Jazeera Blogs


edit: sorry: had to break off for a moment.....the above is an interesting example of information framing/management that would operate one way were you watching egyptian state tv to the exclusion of other sources, and quite another were you to encounter it in the context of the al jazeera stream/blog.

control of the framing of information is a basic political matter. the mubarak regime has lost that control. because of the rigidity of it, the regime is pretty clearly trapped in a motivation crisis, which the old frankfurt school folk of the early 1970s saw as following from legitimation crisis----the wholesale withdrawing of consent from the existing order.

how do you measure consent? how do you measure it's withdrawal?

cimmaron, this is exactly the reason why they need an election. to give the on 97% of the people a voice.

the ironic thing is that mubarak has seemed to have had 99.9% of the popular vote in elections over the last 30 years.

wow, popular guy huh?

I support political change in Egypt, let the chips fall as they may for US relations. Delaying it will simply give the current regime 8 months to pillage an already struggling economy, which is exactly why I think he said he'd wait 8 months - to give himself the time to do just that. He will be exiled anyway, take the money and run.

one particularly interesting note from the guardian blog is a string of indications that the protestors are attempting to spread the geography of action to include outside the parliament. that is a clear escalation. i think that's a good thing.

accepting the american-backed situation is suicide for the opposition. there's no choice but to keep ratcheting up the pressure until mubarak and his duplicates resign.

as an aside, this is interesting, yes?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...port_egyptians

funny you say that cimmaron. there was a sign at one of the protests that read in arabic

"red ass (which means monkey), saudi is waiting"

i thought it was hilarious, considering that arab dictators like idi amin and ben ali seem to flee and seek refuge there. the ironic thing is that ben ali was staunchly anti-islamic and was anti-veil, and look where he ended up seeking refuge. in a country where his wife is only allowed to show her eyes.

serves them right.

Assume they get him to resign today, then what? Do they live with his hand pick successor? What changes? It will take time to have open and fair elections, what is wrong with having an orderly transition when that is a clear and obvious option?

Even that as a given, the structural problems are still there. In Egypt the average household spends about 50% of their income on food.
( The 25 Countries That Will Be Screwed By A World Food Crisis ) The country has had declining oil production with an increasing reliance on net imports. The threat of increased food inflation over the next few years is high and poverty rates in the country will continue to get worse before improvement. An orderly transition, from an outsider's view, seems important for living conditions. During this revolution exports from Egypt have materially declined which means less national income and will make living conditions worse.

the central demand from the revolution---and i think it's fair to call it that---is that mubarak step down. it is mubarak and his circle who assume that the only alternative to themselves is chaos.

suleiman has used this vague, unfounded "fear" of chaos---put into play by mubarak et al to justify staying in power and trying to ride things out to the point where attention turns elsewhere and they can turn the army loose---which has already been happening btw

Egypt's army 'involved in detentions and torture' | World news | The Guardian

third suleiman is mubarak's proxy. the cabinet is the same people as the old. there has been no transition. mubarak has operated in bad faith for 30 years with respect to egypt's people. it's no surprise that noone believes that this is a transitional government.

four, the revolution has widened into a general strike. if mubarak wants to avoid the collapse, he will have to leave sooner rather than later. the situation is no longer if mubarak leaves there will be problems----the situation is that if mubarak stays there will be problems. this is a revolutionary situation.

five there is no opposition to orderly transition---it's pretty clear if you actually pay attention to what people are saying in/around/about the revolt itself that everyone WANTS an orderly transition---but without mubarak.

one aspect of that transition is an immediate dissolution of parliament--which is stacked with ndp people "elected" in obviously rigged elections---and the beginning of the fashioning of a new constitution. you know, like the framers did in the united states. it was ok for the united states in 1787....but it's too big a risk for egypt now? horseshit.

lastly, i really dont understand what you think you're demonstrating by trotting out cherrypicked economic data that everyone already knows about an presenting it as if you're moses descending from the mount. it is in the interests of all the egyptian people---except for those inside the oligarchy that has pillaged the place for the last 30 years by virtue of their alignment with mubarak---that this regime end.

the arguments are political ethical and economic. it is not important that you can't seem to figure that out.


there are arguments that people who buy the worldview centered on the american national security state can make for mubarak staying in power---but you're not making any of them. those arguments are all rubbish in any event. the only people who buy them have been getting briefed by fading conservatives and lobbyists in the employ of likud. you know, the same tired old reactionaries that have opposed democracy as something more than a word where-ever it has raised its head for 70 years.

Ace... as long as Mubarak is in power nothing will change. He has been promising political reform since 1982 and there hasn't been one ounce of change. I can understand that people might be a little fed up.

I don't think anyone isn't asking for orderly transition. What they are asking for is Mubarak to step away from the levers of power so he can't influence the transition in his favour.

not sure if this has been shown or reported on extensively on western media, but googles head of marketing in the middle east Wael Ghonim was arrested after the January 25th protests. he disappeared for 12 days without anyone knowing where he was or what happened to him. he has been credited with being the person who started the facebook revolution.

he was released 2 days ago and has resurfaced with an emotional video on egptian TV.

The video speaks for itself. In arabic with english subtitles in Time Magazines story.

Google's Wael Ghonim: A Leader for Egyptian Protesters? - TIME

there are reports beginning to surface that mubarak will turn over power to suleiman tonight. they're not confirmed.

Egypt protests - Thursday 10 February | World news | guardian.co.uk

suleiman clearly has no credibility. so as one of the protestors said, the response will likely be rewriting the signs and continuing.

however, the process of forming the kind of positions that make sense in a game geared toward eliminating the mubarak clique, the opposition is now proposing an immediate suspension of the constitution, a disbanding of parliament and appointment of a three-person council to oversee a transition geared toward open, free and fair elections. the council would include representatives of the opposition, military and judiciary and would be geared around it's own elimination.

meanwhile strikes are spreading and now involve doctors and lawyers, who have appeared in considerable numbers as professional guilds amongst the protestors in front of parliament and in tahrir square:

Live blog Feb 10 - Egypt protests | Al Jazeera Blogs


with the interior ministry, suleiman and foreign minister all making noises about a "coup" undertaken by "adventurers" bent on "chaos" as a justification for increased repression at the same time.

things may be approaching a tipping point.

So just to recap:

People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: No.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: Okay, I appoint a vice president.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: No.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: I fire my cabinet and hire a new set which I picked.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: No.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: Okay, I'll leave in eight months.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: No.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: Okay, I'll let all of my family resign from their government posts.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: No.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.
Mubarak: Okay, I'll go now and leave in place the person that I appointed.
People: We want to elect our own leaders.


Did I miss anything? This reminds me of what I tell my toddler: You need to put on your "listening ears." That means you, Mubarak.

not to this point. the last line may be different though. at the moment, it's not at all clear what is to follow mubarak---it's just as likely to be a military coup as suleiman. i think the sense that the puppet government has no legitimacy is way bigger than you or i imagine tracking this from a distance. and the strike wave means that the stakes are way higher than they have been.

there are a few possible outcomes here but i've no real sense of which way things will go.

There are different kinds of power. Mubarak is currently impotent as a leader. One of the most important keys involved in protest is knowing when the victory has been won. Mubarak's resignation now is all about symbolism.

actually, ace, it's not obvious yet what the resignation would mean---if it happens-----because it's not obvious what would be in place afterward. it could mean any number of things. it's---you know----complicated and uncertain.

The current situation is chaos, that is the point of an uprising or "revolution". However, the long-term issues are still on the table and actually may be more important. People need to start to transition from the current situation to clearly defining what the long-term goals are.


What is with all of these un-named conservatives? Who the hell are you talking about?

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

It is not possible for Mubarak to revert back to his old ways. He no longer has control of the nation. There is going to be a power vacuum between now and when official elections are held. No structural problems will be solved during this time. These things we do know. These things are not complicated.

rb-I forgot to finish my thoughts, as I was distracted, I edited the post.

no, ace, the opposition does not want "chaos"---the opposition wants democracy. they want an end to the state of emergency. they want an end to routine torture. they want something better than they've had.


when i talk about people who oppose democracy when it's more than a word every time it raises it's head, i refer to people inside the american national security state and the people who, wittingly or not, carry shit for them----like you do----but you're certainly not unique.

I now have Al Jazeera on the TV in the background*, as I'm hoping to hear a positive development from Mubarak's upcoming speech.

It will be interesting to see how a transition is proposed. If Mubarak suggests merely handing the reins over to Suleiman, then I'm sure that won't be enough. As much of the commentary suggests, if Mubarak is genuine is handing power back to the people, the country should set up a council of some kind until legitimate elections are held.

Regardless, it's nice to hear the current timbre coming from the crowd in Liberation Square.

I'm not sure, either, how things will play out; however, it's time, at least, for Mubarak to step down.



*I noticed how Al Jazeera has set up a campaign on their website for Americans to "demand" Al Jazeera in the U.S.

reports are proliferating now that indicate a military coup. what that entails i do not know.
i hope it takes out the whole of the suleiman cabinet and dissolves parliament so that the constitutional process can get under way...transition to elections, etc.

worst scenario, assuming mubarak fucks off, is suleiman still in place, this puppet ndp regime still in place.

I haven't heard anything definitive about a coup. I think if Mubarak's next action does not allow for a council (i.e. a ceding of power by the NDP) as a stepping stone to elections, then a military coup does seem likely.

The military has already moved to "safeguard the country." Maybe they know something about what's going down on the NDP side.

i've given up trying to speculate. every 10 minutes something else is reported (unconfirmed) that cancels out what was previously reported.

newest via al arabiyya is that mubarak will announce new constitutional procedures and hand the game over to suleiman.

that is not enough.

We'll find out in about 15 minutes.

The crowds at both Cairo and Alexandria are jubilant; they think/hope a victory for the people is at hand. I'd hate to see how the next steps play out if Mubarak continues to maintain his regime but under a facade of reform.

If power isn't ceded by Mubarak and his regime, I fear that it's only a matter of time before there is a move to wrest it from them.

They have reached a point of no return.

Mubarak assumed presidential office at around the same time Reagan did. It's time for his government to be dissolved.

the live feed here:

Mubarak resignation rumours ? live updates | World news | guardian.co.uk

is one of the coolest things i've ever seen/heard. especially heard.

Mubarak isn't going anywhere, and he mentioned transferring power to Suleiman.

Jubilation has turned to anger. The shoes are off.

This is unfortunate.

This.

This man is such a jackass. I suppose he sees to die in this, so that this pure uprising of a people can be better understood - you know, in a Louis and Marie sort of way. "We need more looting, more fires, more dead. We can't have a peaceful revolution. I can't go away like this, I need to be a martyr. Quick find some Americans with heads!"

un-fucking-believable.

the shit is going to hit the fan. it's just a matter of when.

the scenario at the moment...there's specuation based on what the military said collectively earlier in the day about "resorting to extra-constitutional means" that there was an almost-coup. then there were a series of reports that indicated things appeared to be fluid because behind the curtain there were arguments still going on about how to play things.

it is not clear what, if anything, was transferred to suleiman.
it was not clear what, if anything, mubarak was talking about with the repeated references to "foreigners"---tho it did resemble in some ways american conservative-speak at those moments when they decided to declare themselves the "Real Americans"--but i digress.
the constitutional moves are interesting...mostly geared toward elections, opening them up...and annulling the constitutional basis for the state of emergency. again.

so a charade, really.

twitter shards indicate that the crowd is moving off tahrir toward national tv.

shit could hit the fan tonight.

i hope the people keep their cool. let the strike do it's work. this asshole will be brought to his knees once the canal gets shut down.

I do not oppose democracy.

sheesh. what do you suppose has emboldened him?

They have won the day. Now is the time to focus on rebuilding the nation, not further protests. There is nothing more be be gained.

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------

You have to be kidding. Do you know the consequences of what you are hoping for?

I thought that you didn't believe people should compromise in the pursuit of their convictions.

They haven't really won anything but hot air.

Pride.

He conceded by indicating he was not going to run and would support open elections. That was not enough. Continued pressure from inside and outside the country caused Mubarak to draw a line in the sand. Now the only way he steps down before the elections is by force. The wrong tactics were employed if the only goal was to get him to voluntarily leave before elections in the fall.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

The key is knowing what you are fighting for and knowing when you have won. Mubarak stepping down before the elections in the fall would only be symbolic. I am not big into symbolism. I prefer real change.

suleiman has just told several million people who weren't listening to go home.

mubarak talked about himself.

there's a "clear road-map" in the form of committee protocols that no-one outside the oligarchy has access to. the oligarchy is of course exactly the same people as were around power before. pawns from the left side of the board have been moved to the right side of the board.

this is what "stability" looks like....superficial theater.

democracy is something argued for by outsiders except when it's a legitimate demand and is something we are moving toward now but remains in the future, one that they will always find reasons to keep in abeyance as the people are never ready for democracy. why they'd have to think for themselves, and you can see from the united of states that lots of people prefer "simple" to thinking for themselves and that this democracy business is best if other people take care of the democray part for them because if that doesn't happen then.....oopsie.....simple goes out the window.

here's what i think mubarak's "stability" is going to result in:

Live blog Feb 10 - Egypt protests | Al Jazeera Blogs



another take:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Weird: I click on AlJaz to watch and the same millisecond John Mayer's "Waiting for the world to change" starts up on Pandora.

So you're saying that you've inserted yourself into the collective psyche of the Egyptian protesters, you know what they're fighting for and that they've won? But that they don't know this?

ace, waving your shoes at the president in the middle of his speech and chanting slogans telling him to leave isn't a victory dance. Moments before, they were singing.

roachboy, those are ominous statements. It will be interesting to see what unfolds tomorrow.

It's also interesting that you should observe how Mubarak talked about himself; just an hour before that, Obama used the Egyptian revolution as a source of inspiration for small-town Americans and job prospects. At least he maintains the position that America will support a transition to democracy. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much anyone can support something that isn't going to take place.

All of this—it's rather unfortunate.

the administration is bent out of shape that mubarak didn't step down, apparently. they had been given to believe that was the next step and had started to try to get out in front of it in the usual way. the palace turmoil interpretation makes sense to me---i would imagine this wasn't decided upon until the last minute. the speech---which is a hallmark in the annals of vague ("some powers" were delegated to suleiman. which ones? all of them? who's in charge in egypt now? it's a temporary thing, according to the constitution....so is suleiman in charge until mubarak sez he isn't? what the fuck?)

tomorrow could be revolution.
the blunder has happened from the state.
people are mobilized in great number and are PISSED.....and i would expect that you'll see a LOT of people out tomorrow. what's interesting is that the protests keep growing, drawing in people who were not previously involved....but we'll see.

while trying to keep up with the many and varied updates, i get the impression this situation is still very fluid.

I hope that yesterday's 3 million becomes tomorrow's 10 million.

Mubarak believes he'll placate the protests by himself falling on the sword and giving power to another dictator.

I believe this will only further the resolve of the protesters to get full democracy votes.

this is stunning:

-guardianinternalstream- on USTREAM: .

So the military is in control at the moment, or VP, or no one?

it's not clear. from what i've been able to figure out, the supreme military council is in charge of the transition. there are reports that they'll dissolve parliament and fire the council that mubarak appointed. it's also possible that suleiman de facto resigned with his 30 second statement.

but the attention seems mostly on the fact of mubarak's resignation at the moment.

and speaking entirely personally, i'm still kind of intoxicated by the sound of revolution on that feed....

People can say what they are fighting for and people can fight for what they are fighting for. The words are not consistent with their actions.

No doubt you've been casually interviewing people in your local supermarket about the true demands of the Egyptian people.

Ever considered that perhaps you're mistaken about what they're fighting for? Or maybe you might not be in the best position to judge their strategy?

Its amazing...a glimmer of hope that Egypt could set a democratic example for the entire region and spearhead reform, reconstruction and a lasting peace with Israel. The door is wide open, but its not going to stay open for long.

Come on Egypt!!