Revolution in Tunisia & Egypt, Protests in Libya, Bahrain, Oman & Yemen - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 02-04-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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

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.

Quote:

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).

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.

Quote:

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.

We can have an opinion.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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.

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?

Baraka_Guru · 02-04-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

Cimarron29414 · 02-04-2011, 09:43 AM

Can sista's join the brotherhood?

Sorry, couldn't help it.

roachboy · 02-04-2011, 10:03 AM

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.

Baraka_Guru · 02-04-2011, 10:05 AM

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.

roachboy · 02-04-2011, 10:30 AM

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.

Cimarron29414 · 02-04-2011, 11:54 AM

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?

roachboy · 02-04-2011, 12:31 PM

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....

roachboy · 02-04-2011, 02:55 PM

YouTube - Protesters in Tahrir Square break into song

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.

Seaver · 02-04-2011, 03:42 PM

YouTube - The diplomatic car that ran over 20 people in cairo (28th-Jan-2011)

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.

Baraka_Guru · 02-04-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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?

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.

ottopilot · 02-04-2011, 08:17 PM

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.

Seaver · 02-05-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

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.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz1D6AKeIjk

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.

roachboy · 02-05-2011, 08:39 AM

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.

ottopilot · 02-06-2011, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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.

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.

dc_dux · 02-06-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

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."

ottopilot · 02-06-2011, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

dc_dux · 02-06-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

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.

filtherton · 02-06-2011, 09:31 PM

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.

roachboy · 02-06-2011, 09:35 PM

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.

dc_dux · 02-06-2011, 09:37 PM

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

Quote:

The Egyptian military has been notably non-confrontational during the recent wave of protests, defending the right of people to protest and protecting the protesters from attacks by pro-regime forces.

One reason for the military's peaceful response: the unique role it plays in the Egyptian economy. The military owns "virtually every industry in the country," according to Robert Springborg....Here's a list he rattled off from the top of his head:

...car assembly, we're talking of clothing, we're talking of construction of roads, highways, bridges. We're talking of pots and pans, we're talking of kitchen appliances. You know, if you buy an appliance there's a good chance that it's manufactured by the military. If you ... don't have natural gas piped into your house and you have to have a gas bottle, the gas bottle will have been manufactured by the military. Some of the foodstuffs that you will be eating will have been grown and/or processed by the military.

The reasons for this arrangement go back to the '60s and '70s, when the Egyptian military was very large as a result of the wars with Israel. After the peace treaty with Israel was signed, the need for such a large fighting force disappeared. But leaders worried about all those young men released from military service suddenly flooding the job market.

So the military transformed itself from a fighting force to hiring force. And some of the businesses it got into were pretty far away from its traditional mission. For example, the military had all these forces stationed on the coast — a really pretty coast that lots of people would probably pay to visit. So, Springborg says, the question arose:

What are we gonna do with this military zone that is huge and in the most desirable part of the country and has extremely beautiful beaches, and some of the greatest … coral reefs in the world and was absolutely crying out for touristic development?

The answer: The military gave private developers access to the land, and the developers made military officers shareholders in big tourist developments.

No one knows for sure how many resort hotels or other businesses in Egypt are run by the military, which controls somewhere between 5 percent and 40 percent of the nation's economy, according to various estimates. Whatever the number, Springborg says, officers in the Egyptian military are making "billions and billions and billions" of dollars.

These billions would be threatened if the protests devolved into full-on civil conflict. People in the middle of violent political chaos don't buy dishwashers....

Why Egypt's Military Cares About Home Appliances : Planet Money : NPR

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.

roachboy · 02-07-2011, 07:37 AM

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

Quote:

Egypt's Democratic Mirage

How Cairo’s Authoritarian Regime Is Adapting to Preserve Itself
Joshua Stacher
JOSHUA STACHER is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kent State University. He is writing a book comparing authoritarianism in Egypt and Syria.

Despite the tenacity, optimism, and blood of the protesters massed in Tahrir Square, Egypt's democratic window has probably already closed.

Contrary to the dominant media narrative, over the last ten days the Egyptian state has not experienced a regime breakdown. The protests have certainly rocked the system and have put Mubarak on his heels, but at no time has the uprising seriously threatened Egypt's regime. Although many of the protesters, foreign governments, and analysts have concentrated on the personality of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, those surrounding the embattled president, who make up the wider Egyptian regime, have made sure the state's viability was never in question. This is because the country's central institution, the military, which historically has influenced policy and commands near-monopolistic economic interests, has never balked.

As the headquarters of the ruling National Democratic Party burned to the ground, NDP members chaotically appeared on TV with a pathetically incoherent message; meanwhile, the message from the ruling military elite was clear, united, fully supportive of Mubarak, and disciplined practically down to a man. Indeed, this discipline could be seen throughout the military ranks. Despite the fact that a general with a megaphone stated his solidarity with the protesters while other protesters painted "Down to Mubarak" on tanks across central Cairo, no acts of organizational fragmentation or dissent within the chain of command have occurred.

Since January 28, the Mubarak regime has sought to encircle the protesters. Egypt's governing elites have used different parts of the regime to serve as arsonist and firefighter. Due to the regime's role in both lighting the fire and extinguishing it, protesters were effectively forced to flee from one wing of the regime to another. This occurred on two levels: first, the regime targeted the protesters, using the police as its battering ram. During the first days of demonstrations, uniformed officers fired rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowds. Beginning on February 2, plain-clothes officers posing as Mubarak supporters -- some on horseback and camels -- carried whips and sticks to intimidate and injure those protesting against the system, teaching them a repressive lesson.

Although it is impossible to say that every single member of the "pro-Mubarak" crowd was in the security forces, enough of them had their credentials taken to illustrate an indisputable police presence. Moreover, the violence has been selective and targeted, not chaotic, as Mubarak has described. The disappearance of police officers on January 29, leaving the neighborhoods to criminal elements and neighborhood watch groups, and their reappearance 24 hours later suggest that they were acting on orders, rather than haphazardly dispersing and returning.

While the army kept order in the streets, the Interior Ministry and police were functioning as the regime's repressive arm, performing the dirty work of trying to force the protesters from Tahrir back into their homes.

The military's rank and file, who are deployed on the streets, became part of a different regime strategy. There is no doubt that solidarities developed between protesters and soldiers as fellow citizens, but the army's aloof neutrality underscores that its role on the sidelines was intentional. This was prominently on display when the "pro-Mubarak" demonstrators attacked antigovernment protesters in Tahrir on February 2. That the siege of a major city square took place over the course of 16 hours, leaving 13 dead and more than 1,200 wounded, according to the Egyptian Ministry of Health, suggests that the military's orders were conceived to cast its officers as potential saviors from the brutal violence.

This containment strategy has worked. By politically encircling the protesters, the regime prevented the conflict from extending beyond its grasp. With the protesters caught between regime-engineered violence and regime-manufactured safety, the cabinet generals remained firmly in control of the situation.

The generals that now man the cabinet also sought to wage a war on the non-protesting population, and they did so without firing a single shot. As the state framed the demonstrators as troublemakers, non-protesting Egyptians experienced the uprising's effects. Banks have been closed since January 27, ATMs have been emptied of their cash, and the prices of food and staples have slowly risen at a time when school is cancelled, offices are closed, and curfews are in effect. Similarly, the Internet and cellular networks were shut off and have been patchy at best since their return.

Although some of these citizens may have sympathized with the protesters initially, their mood appears to be shifting. People are tired of being cooped up in their apartments, made anxious as their stockpiles of food and money decrease, and they are ready for a sense of "normalcy" to return. Ironically, the normalcy they pine for resembles the police state so many tried to banish just thirteen days ago. This method of wearing down the non-protesting public seems just as strategic as the violence employed on those airing their grievances in the streets.

The story that the news media have largely crafted is that of the good protesters pitted against the bad Mubarak dictatorship. Despite the accurate reporting of incidents and often horrifying images, the fact that the Egyptian regime has played a good-cop, bad-cop routine to contain the situation remains lost in the din of 24-hour coverage. Despite many of the protesters pointing out this dynamic, such as Hossam el-Hamalawy and Mahmoud Salem, it has failed to take hold as the prevailing thread.

Nevertheless, as the crisis has deepened, the push for Mubarak's resignation has intensified. According to The New York Times, the Obama administration will seek to have Mubarak retire early instead of waiting until the September election. The United States has repeatedly insisted on an "orderly transition."

If those guiding the transition choose to direct it toward a democratic end, then it will have to include forces that are currently banned in the country, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and individuals who have been tortured or imprisoned, such as Ayman Nour. It will have to include the youth elements from the street organizing committees as well as the irrelevant figures that head the country's existing opposition parties. Managing such a transition from dictatorship to democracy is a massive challenge even in the best of times. The leader of the transition will therefore determine whether it results in a genuine democracy or continuous authoritarian rule. If that person is General Omar Suleiman, who was sworn in as vice president on January 30, the prospects for democracy are grim.

Suleiman is cut from the same undemocratic cloth as Mubarak. They have collaborated since 1993, and Suleiman shares many of Mubarak's policy preferences and his worldview. He is known for his skill as a negotiator and his disdain for the Muslim Brotherhood. Although the vice president may now seem a stabilizing force for the Egyptian state during a transition period, U.S. officials should consider that he might seek to stay in power long beyond September.

Indeed, some of Suleiman's earliest public statements since becoming vice president do not bode well for democracy. In fact, they sound eerily familiar. On February 2, the bloodiest day in Tahrir Square to date, Suleiman said the regime now refuses to negotiate until "the Egyptian street returns to normal." Sensing that the regime had the upper hand, Suleiman declared that a new constitution is out of the question in advance of the presidential election later this year and asserted that the unrest had been the result of "a conspiracy" directed by "foreign countries, the Muslim Brothers, and some parties." Lastly, echoing the paternalistic tone that Mubarak has employed for nearly 30 years, Suleiman recommended, "We will ask [protesters] to go home. And we'll ask their parents to ask them to go home." Hence, he effectively called out potential transition partners as traitors and children before pledging to conduct another presidential election under a desperately flawed constitution.

The protesters have been given an ambiguous choice about this transition. Go home and -- perhaps -- be invited to the negotiating table later, or continue protesting and be excluded from Suleiman's negotiations. Some independent figures, such as Amr Moussa and Nabil Fahmy, have broken ranks with the protesters and met with Suleiman. Given that many of these individuals held previous appointments in Mubarak's Egypt, protesters will likely be skeptical of their intentions as agents of change.

There is no doubt that the post-Mubarak era is afoot, but it is not necessarily a democratic one. The Egyptian military leaders that are governing the country seem content to leave Mubarak in his place so Suleiman can act as the sitting president. Indeed, even leading government officials, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have begun to direct their concerns to Suleiman's office. Hence, as the protesters in Tahrir Square -- and the non-protesters facing empty refrigerators and wallets at home -- have begun to feel the state's squeeze, the regime has so far maintained its ability to control how the conflict is unfolding.

When the uprising began in Egypt, many linked the events in Tunis and Cairo and declared that 2011 might be the Arab world's 1989. Instead, 2011 is showing just how durable and adaptable the authoritarian regimes of the Arab world truly are. Faced with real challenges and moments of potential breakdown, Egypt's military did not hesitate or even break a sweat. In fact, the regime remained cohesive throughout by pursuing a sophisticated strategy of unleashing violence upon the people and then saving them from it.

This latest adaptation of autocracy in the Arab world is more honest than its previous incarnations. Before the uprising in Egypt began, the military ruled from behind the curtain while elites, represented by public relations firms and buoyed by snappy slogans, initiated neoliberal economic policies throughout Egypt. In this latest rendering, with Suleiman at the helm, the state's objective of restoring a structure of rule by military managers is not even concealed. This sort of "orderly transition" in post-Mubarak Egypt is more likely to usher in a return to the repressive status quo than an era of widening popular participation.

Egypt's Democratic Mirage | Foreign Affairs

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

Quote:

The NDP is dead; long live the NDP?
Nabil Shawkat, Sunday 6 Feb 2011
We have killed our ruling party, and its ghost is coming back to haunt us

Mubarak is now out of the picture, perhaps by orders of his vice president. He is not going to be part of the future of this country. He will either leave Egypt in an “honourable” way, or just be pushed to the back to sign papers and rolled out on occasion to repeat a few well-rehearsed phrases. Mubarak is no more. His son is no more. His party is no more. But the spirit of his rule, the essence of his regime, and the methods of his era are far from over.

It is dangerous to kill a ruling party, because like the hydra of lore, ruling parties have many heads, far-reaching tentacles, and very deep pockets. I know the army has denounced any connection with the pro-Mubarak marauders, but the repudiation is far from being completely sincere. Only yesterday I walked by a security truck near the Italian Club in Bulak, north of Tahrir Square. Inside it, a plainclothes official was organising a small mob to attack or harass a certain person. I heard the order given while I was passing by, so I looked at the license plates. Sure enough, they were army plates.

For the past few days, the army was accusing unnamed people of wearing its uniforms to spread chaos. Perhaps this was a stolen army vehicle. But then again, perhaps it wasn’t.

The signs are already worrying. The prime minister, Ahmad Shafiq, appeared on television more than once, disassociating himself from the violence against demonstrators and saying that he did not give any orders to that effect. I believe him. And then again, I know that some orders have been given. For the marauders are just too organised to lack leadership.

Shafiq may have been telling the truth. But Omar Soliman, vice president and interim president-in-waiting, didn’t deign to come clean. In his first television interview, he gave the impression that he was running the country, that – if he wanted – he could tell Mubarak to go to his room and stay there. The same day, Christiane Amanpour interviewed the president, but without the benefit of a camera. Mubarak has been “grounded”, no longer allowed to play with the media in public.

Then Soliman uttered his first lie. He said that the Tahrir demonstrators, who practically brought him to at least transitional power, were being manipulated by “foreign agendas”. This was the first lie from a fresh regime, and it had the bitter taste of the deposed one. Soliman made the statement on Thursday, the same day that saw a witch hunt of foreign journalists in Cairo, with dozens beaten, arrested, and their cameras taken away or smashed. I was in Tahrir Square that day. I had my ID checked several times by disbanded internal security personnel guarding the pro-Mubarak marauders, and one of them volunteered the fact that they had “caught” a Jew in Tahrir Square.

“So what if they found fifty Jews?” I said. He didn’t answer. The day before, they discovered an Israeli engineer sitting at a coffeehouse in Port Said or Ismailia. This was supposed to be proof of something, damning evidence against the Tahrir protestors.

If it looks like the NDP, talks like the NDP, and walks like the NDP, perhaps it is the NDP. I know that our ruling party is charred, barred and bruised. It can no longer sport the glamorous “new look” of Gamal Mubarak or dance to the intricate choreography of Ahmad Ezz. But the NDP lives on.

In ancient Egypt, the period of mourning for the dead was 40 days. It was the period the dead need to travel from the world of the living to the underworld of eternity. The NDP has only been dead for a week or so, and its ghost is still running around like a chicken with its head cut off, shouting support for a president who is sulking in his bedroom, ranting against invisible “foreign agendas”, and giving orders from abandoned or donated army vehicles. If this goes beyond the 40 day period of mourning, then there is a chance that a new NDP is going to rise from the ashes and make us tremble once again.

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...

aceventura3 · 02-07-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

it's not simple.
nothing is simple.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

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?

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.

Baraka_Guru · 02-07-2011, 01:55 PM

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?

aceventura3 · 02-07-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

Not the issue.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Baraka_Guru · 02-07-2011, 02:31 PM

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.

aceventura3 · 02-07-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

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.

roachboy · 02-07-2011, 05:00 PM

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

Seaver · 02-07-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

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.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...#ixzz1DKoQrnaA

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.

roachboy · 02-08-2011, 04:28 AM

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.

Cimarron29414 · 02-08-2011, 06:57 AM

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?

dlish · 02-08-2011, 07:14 AM

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.

Cimarron29414 · 02-08-2011, 07:19 AM

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

roachboy · 02-08-2011, 07:31 AM

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.

Cimarron29414 · 02-08-2011, 07:41 AM

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.

roachboy · 02-08-2011, 07:51 AM

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?

dlish · 02-08-2011, 10:11 AM

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?

Cimarron29414 · 02-08-2011, 10:24 AM

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.

roachboy · 02-08-2011, 10:38 AM

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

dlish · 02-08-2011, 10:41 AM

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.

02-04-2011, 09:43 AM	#123 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	Can sista's join the brotherhood? Sorry, couldn't help it. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-04-2011, 10:03 AM	#124 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2011, 10:05 AM	#125 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-04-2011, 10:30 AM	#126 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2011, 11:54 AM	#127 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 02-04-2011 at 12:07 PM..

02-04-2011, 12:31 PM	#128 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-04-2011, 08:17 PM	#132 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	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. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

02-05-2011, 08:39 AM	#134 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-06-2011, 09:31 PM	#139 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	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.

02-06-2011, 09:35 PM	#140 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-07-2011, 01:55 PM	#144 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-07-2011, 02:31 PM	#146 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-07-2011, 05:00 PM	#148 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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 __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-07-2011 at 05:25 PM..

02-08-2011, 04:28 AM	#150 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-08-2011 at 05:15 AM..

02-08-2011, 06:57 AM	#151 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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? __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly." Last edited by Cimarron29414; 02-08-2011 at 07:27 AM..

02-08-2011, 07:14 AM	#152 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	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. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-08-2011, 07:19 AM	#153 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	I wasn't trying to suggest that 30M should show up in Tahrir square. I was thinking they would gather in their regional capitals. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-08-2011, 07:31 AM	#154 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-08-2011, 07:41 AM	#155 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-08-2011, 07:51 AM	#156 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-08-2011 at 08:56 AM..

02-08-2011, 10:11 AM	#157 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	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? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

02-08-2011, 10:24 AM	#158 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	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. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

02-08-2011, 10:38 AM	#159 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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 __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-08-2011, 10:41 AM	#160 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	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. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy