Egypt leaves the Internet, citizens revolt. Update: Internet's back, still revolting.

[transplant99]

You "have to believe"? Why do you have to believe as such? Absent proof that there are more like this in the MB, you're simply making an assumption. Which is obviously your prerogative... but that renders this your personal opinion rather than being discursive.

Because i am not stupid and prefer to adhere to the position and belief in "history tends to repeat itself".

Again, and maybe this has been missed before, I am not saying that the MB is a bad orginization at its core. What I am saying is that it would be absolutely foolish to believe that it hasn't got members (likely high up to some degree) who have nothing but bad intentions and are using the group as a way of rising to power. Its been repeated over and over in that part of the world. Taliban (Afgahnistan), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestine)...all groups that parroted being the right choice for the people but who's ultimate motive is nothing but violence towards others and oppression to their own in order to maintain control and preach their message.

I think today or tomorrow, as CC mentions above, complete and total anarchy takes over. At that point who is going to be in position to assume control and sell the magic elixir to the masses? The Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully ElBaradei is the guy leading and has the smarts to keep things even keel, as he is certainly a very cerebral and experienced guy when it comes to international relations. That ebing said, even he can't control everybody associated with the MB, no matter who he is.

What proof do you have to imply a linkage? Seems to me that you have a personal assumption (the italic part), then a fact (in bold; i didn't know it was family members facilitating but I'll give it to you). You're clearly implying a linkage between these two "facts" when you offer no such proof. That is why I said your assertion was two events that were unrelated absent proof of linkage.

Ummm...what? I don't know that i NEED to prove what the intelligence community thinks about MB...if I do so be it, but the talking heads have been all over the place giving their opinions on it after interviews with the guys that matter.

as for the prison break...

Thirty-four members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition group in Egypt, escaped from prison during a riot in the midst of the current wave of protests that shook the country.

The group includes seven members of the management of the organization.One of them, Essam El Erian,mostly common criminals, were able to overcome the guards, free and open doors to all other prisoners.

Maybe these guys were under arrest for doing nothing and should never have been there at all, I have no idea. I do know, however, that storming a prison, overpowering guards during a riot, and then releasing all the prisoners is not an act of the non-violent. In fact it kind of flies in the face of such a claim.

[HOZ]

IMO, it is very unlikely that Egypt will become a democracy. It has absolutely no recent history of it like South Africa had when it turned. History that is alive in the opposition and able to direct the country towards democracy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its interesting if you go back and read history, especially Islamic history. It seems to be a religious institution (like most) that abhors the concept of democracy. In every case, its a strong, and a lot of the time brutal individuals who lead the people and are suppossed to keep them on the path of the faith and righteousnous.

Basically these are men who not only interpret the Koran for the people, but point the sword and tell them where to go.

Islam seems to be more suited to the whole theocracy method of government, while Christianity tends to be a little more subersive, either leading from behind, or leading without being a state figurehead.

If Egypt does happen to fall into more religious leadership, and if Jordan falls, the American's lose two key moderate states, which is a fairly frightening prospect for Israel for example.

And I get the fixation on the Muslim Brotherhood and their statement that they've given up on violence. And I applaud that, however they do not recognize Israel, and I believe they still consider Israel to be an enemy of all Islam, and if they do get into power, how does that truly effect the balance in Middle East, their words and rhetoric alone could cause problems. They could very non violently start smuggling weapons to those nut jobs in Hamas.

Just because you're non violent doesn't mean that you can't kick off a whirlwind in the region.

[burn_this_city]

Sign says "Leave already, my arm is hurting"

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by HOZ

IMO, it is very unlikely that Egypt will become a democracy. It has absolutely no recent history of it like South Africa had when it turned. History that is alive in the opposition and able to direct the country towards democracy.

This isn't directed at you personally but i do find it funny that all of the sudden everyone and their dog seems to be an expert on Egyptian politics whereas two days ago I'm sure 80% of these people couldn't name their president.

More importantly, why does it seem like their are only two options, Mubarak and radical Islam, isn't there a healthy medium like Elbaradai. How much of this fear of radical islam is propaganda for the anti-revolution camp?

[burn_this_city]

CNN and the other western news agencies seem fixated on the Islamic revolution idea. Despite all the photos and testimony from Egypt discrediting that this is a religious movement. The best coverage from the start has been from Al Jazeera, its been reported the White House is watching the english version for the news on the ground.

[mykalberta]

I hope a group whose motto is

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope"

is not Egypt's only hope.

http://www.meforum.org/687/the-musli...uest-of-europe

If it so be it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its interesting if you go back and read history, especially Islamic history. It seems to be a religious institution (like most) that abhors the concept of democracy. In every case, its a strong, and a lot of the time brutal individuals who lead the people and are suppossed to keep them on the path of the faith and righteousnous.

Basically these are men who not only interpret the Koran for the people, but point the sword and tell them where to go.

Islam seems to be more suited to the whole theocracy method of government, while Christianity tends to be a little more subersive, either leading from behind, or leading without being a state figurehead.

If Egypt does happen to fall into more religious leadership, and if Jordan falls, the American's lose two key moderate states, which is a fairly frightening prospect for Israel for example.

And I get the fixation on the Muslim Brotherhood and their statement that they've given up on violence. And I applaud that, however they do not recognize Israel, and I believe they still consider Israel to be an enemy of all Islam, and if they do get into power, how does that truly effect the balance in Middle East, their words and rhetoric alone could cause problems. They could very non violently start smuggling weapons to those nut jobs in Hamas.

Just because you're non violent doesn't mean that you can't kick off a whirlwind in the region.

A Pew Research Poll in 2006 - at the height of the Iraq conflict - found that 65% of Egyptians thought democracy, as defined by the western ideal, would be well suited to their country.

We live in a unique time in world history because, as Sanjary Jha, the co-CEO of Motorola recently observed about the invention and proliferation of the Smart Phone, where all of the knowledge of the world is suddenly presented to even the remotest corners of the planet: “I can’t imagine anything since the invention of the spinning jenny that will so profoundly change the lives of people in the deepest rural parts of the emerging market. This is the knowledge revolution coming to them, finally.”

That is not only about how to build a better steel girder, but also concepts and ideals. There is no way for a society to function - unless its North Korean nutso - in the modern world without the free flow of information and allowing that flow will almost inevitably lead to the situation we are seeing in Egypt and other places through time.

People want more. And they know what more looks like.

I've said it before, Islamic fundamentalism is a self-defeating organism, even as it might have to be first experienced by a population for its limitations to dawn on them.

People, everywhere in the world, regardless of culture, are fundamentally the same at their core.

With democracy, it's not the first election that's actually important. I was actually delighted to see Islamic fundamentalists elected to power in Palestine and thought it was a mistake for western democracies to essentially force them out of power. So long as Islamic fundamentalism is willing or is forced to stand for that second, third and fourth election, where they have to defend their positions and policies as adults instead of the immature children they tend to emulate, they will always be forced to eventually move to what passes for a more centrist position in that society or to compromise with centrists.

In Egypts case, I don't think fundamentalism is really going to be a big problem initially.

My two cents.

PS: Still haven't heard from my man in Cairo. Hope he's sailing away on his yacht!!

Cowperson

[burn_this_city]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158183...gainst-network

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158183...gainst-network

Exactly the kind of moronic things that the Bush administration concocted, what is your point?

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I hope a group whose motto is

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope"

is not Egypt's only hope..

Again, as I asked in a post earlier, why should this upset anyone? Feel free to respond to my concerns in the other post to change my mind.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Exactly the kind of moronic things that the Bush administration concocted, what is your point?

There wasnt a point, it was an intesting article. Next time I'll just PM you information before I post since you seem to be moderating this thread.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

There wasn't a point, it was an intesting article. Next time I'll just PM you information before I post since you seem to be moderating this thread.

Usually someone is trying to make a point by adding a news article into a discussion, but whatever.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by billybob123

Again, as I asked in a post earlier, why should this upset anyone? Feel free to respond to my concerns in the other post to change my mind.

I think maybe some people might be put off by a political party base entirely on word of some "holy" book.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

So let me get this straight, you aren't actually offering any opinions, just critiquing logic? Seems a bit academic and frankly useless...

It's not academic and useless. Language and train of thought are all we have to separate us from the proverbial barbarians at the gates. I can only assess someone's arguments through the language they use and the logic they apply. I trust the same goes for others. If I make an illogical leap, then why would anyone value the subsequent interpretations?

Originally Posted by oilyfan

If you are not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is the next incarnation of the Red Cross, what are you saying?

I'm saying the Muslim Brotherhood (and the interpretations of their motives, whether reasonable or flawed) is irrelevant to the real story. I've been reading reports of how Al-Jazeera's coverage of the uprising has been superior. The reason: they're on the streets listening to people. The predominant message from the people: we want Mubarak out. This is an opportunity where they feel empowered regarding their future, and they aim to take our best shot at achieving it.

Turning to the West, what do we talk about? It didn't take our media (and those in this thread) long to make Egypt about the well being of the West, terrorism, oil, etc... As Hoz has shown, we already have talented artists making very deep and meaningful cartoons. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see many signs in those crowds saying "I'm protesting for my right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and cast out the great American Satan. Enjoy $10/gallon gas infidels."

All this talk is western narcissism and disregards the major story. As a consequence, it trivializes the struggle that these people are going through. It is our responsibility to stay clear and let the process work rather than pre-judge it with our own obsessions.

I talked to an Egyptian fellow that I worked alongside a few years ago. He works in the US and was frustrated at the portrayal of the news here. The one thing he kept repeating in regards to the US coverage: It's not about you.

[Rhyme]

Originally Posted by billybob123

Again, as I asked in a post earlier, why should this upset anyone? Feel free to respond to my concerns in the other post to change my mind.

I'll bite. I take your main point that devotion to one's religion is not directly correlated to one's political position; however, I think that when any governing groups' stated claims concern the preservation of their beliefs rather than the preservation of good governance, there should be concern. Even as a Christian, I would never vote for a party in Canada, despite our country's long tradition of democratic rule, that has articles of belief as their governing platform. They might legislate certain moral principles that I'd agree with (although I doubt any good would come of it), but would I want them to run a budget or handle foreign relations? Church institutions are not administered by faith alone, and yet many religious organizations think that nations merely need to return to God to experience public wealth. Most likely not.

That said, perhaps the Christian-Democratic Union in Germany shows that a political party can uphold both piety and polity. But the context in Germany is different than in Egypt, and I'm not even sure if the "Christian" part of their name is merely a hold over from some previous party alliance. I don't know German politics that well.

So although devotion doesn't mean political destruction, and although the MB has renounced violence, until you show me that they have in place the values that will preserve good governance (which I'll define as democratic elections, market stability, and religious and civil liberties), I'll contend that there are better options for Egyptians. And having know some very devote and sensible Egyptians, I have hope that the country will seek a better option than the MB. Don't let me down, Egypt.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I think maybe some people might be put off by a political party base entirely on word of some "holy" book.

90% of Egyptians are Muslim. That's a higher percentage of the population than Christianity in the USA (about 80%), yet there are major political parties (and a news network) that insist that the nation is "Christian".

I'm uncomfortable with either being so religious, however, I'm neither Egyptian nor American, so really, this has no bearing on what Egypt does.

And it's probably a lot less likely that you'll find people uncomfortable with religious parties in a place like Egypt. Secularism in the Middle East is pretty rare.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Rhyme

I'll bite

(....)

Even as a Christian, I would never vote for a party in Canada, despite our country's long tradition of democratic rule, that has articles of belief as their governing platform.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that religious dogma is a poor guiding principle for a political party; but recall we're talking about Egypt, a country that has a guiding sense of self from religion. The adhan is broadcast from dozens if not hundreds of mosques in each city and you can hear it everywhere you go. Their day and week are guided by the timing of prayer. 10% of Egyptians are Coptic; even their lives are guided by their devotion to their religion.

Egypt is far different from what we're used to in the West.

As to your second point, as an atheist, I immediately dismiss any politician who tries to associate their morality based on their religion to that the country should have.

And having know some very devote and judicious Egyptians, I have hope that the country will seek a better option than the MB. Don't let me down, Egypt.

I'm married to one. The entire in-laws (do aunts, uncles, and cousins count as in-laws?) are in Egypt now; this is a tremendously important moment for Egypt. I hope they don't let THEMSELVES down, I don't care if they let us down.

As FF,PhD said his Egyptian colleague said, this really isn't about us... at all.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

It's not academic and useless. Language and train of thought are all we have to separate us from the proverbial barbarians at the gates. I can only assess someone's arguments through the language they use and the logic they apply. I trust the same goes for others. If I make an illogical leap, then why would anyone value the subsequent interpretations?



I'm saying the Muslim Brotherhood (and the interpretations of their motives, whether reasonable or flawed) is irrelevant to the real story. I've been reading reports of how Al-Jazeera's coverage of the uprising has been superior. The reason: they're on the streets listening to people. The predominant message from the people: we want Mubarak out. This is an opportunity where they feel empowered regarding their future, and they aim to take our best shot at achieving it.

Turning to the West, what do we talk about? It didn't take our media (and those in this thread) long to make Egypt about the well being of the West, terrorism, oil, etc... As Hoz has shown, we already have talented artists making very deep and meaningful cartoons. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see many signs in those crowds saying "I'm protesting for my right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and cast out the great American Satan. Enjoy $10/gallon oil infidels."

All this talk is western narcissism and disregards the major story. As a consequence, it trivializes the struggle that these people are going through. It is our responsibility to stay clear and let the process work rather than pre-judge it with our own obsessions.

I talked to an Egyptian fellow that I worked alongside a few years ago. He works in the US and was frustrated at the portrayal of the news here. The one thing he kept repeating in regards to the US coverage: It's not about you.

There are millions pf people thinking about the Egyptians, because it is news, yes it is not about us, but we care. Why do I care? I want the world to be a better place, people to have jobs, food, health care and not live under opression.

I want Mubarak to step down, but why is it so hard to understand that some people might wish, and wish is the key word here because nobody is going there and telling them what to do, that he is replaced by secular organization that cares more about keeping the people fed and employed as opposed to spreading the word of a supposed god?

[redforever]

Google has developed a new service that will allow people in Egypt to post Twitter messages without an internet connection.


http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/0...tter-text.html