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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if I agree totally with this statement. Egypt and Tunisia and Jordan might be Muslim states in name, but I don't think that they're theocracies except in name only.

The Governments also didn't or don't have control over their armed forces to the extent that they needed to survive.

The governments in Iran are another nut to bust entirely, and I don't think you'll see large scale demonstrations there for a while.

I would hope that the Hamas government in Palestine would be one of the next governments to fall.

I agree with you on Iran. Iran is much more facist and tightly controlled state. A large portion of the population is essentially recruited as thought police and spy on their neighbours for the government.

Mubarak on the other hand, had no control of the army. He was 82 and is rumoured to have been dieing of cancer. Egypt, in theory, is also a democracy. Obviously nowhere near a perfect democracy, but a big step up from Iran's theocracy.

Apples and oranges.

I think Hamas won't fall that easily either. Hamas is supported by the population in Gaza, in general. When you have hardline families having on average 7-8 kids, it's difficult for more liberal people to have a voice.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm sorry, you can't make a generalization like this.

Mubarak was 82, and as far as dictators go, he really wasn't all that bad. If you's tried this with many other dictators (ones who have a firm grasp of the army) they would have gassed and/or shot the protestors at the first signs of trouble.

Violence will always be a necessity in some revolutions.

Wasn't all that bad compared to what though?

No he isn't among the Pol Pot/Adolph Hitler group of loonies, but there is an extensive list of human rights abuses under his watch that a place like Amnesty International would have a book the size of New York on.

Mubarek was good for Israel, and for helping maintain stability in that part of the mid-east. He was good for the USA as an ally and a geo-political station.

He was NOT good for the people of Egypt however. Not in the least. That's why they decided enough was enough.

There was no such thing as a democracy under his rule either. You couldnt hold office there if you didnt run under his parties banner. (New Democratic party ironically). He quelled many an uprising in the past with violence, its just that this time it was way way to big for him and his security guys to stop. Remember that the citizens of Egypt have tried this in spots in the past only to be thwarted by his "police" force. The uprising in 2008 the most recent organized one.

Though Mubarek lost the military this time, he still had his guard on hand and we saw that last week when the protestors were attacked repeatedly.

I have said all along that although he has to go as it is what the people want, Mubarek was also a guy that could keep things from falling into total chaos and allow time for things to happen. That's not the case any longer.

I think some serious questions have to be answered soon. Who is running things and are decisions made as a group or is the military command doing as they wish? Freedom for the first time is an intoxicating feeling and we have to hope that it doesnt translate to some form of anarchy.

Whatever happens from here on out however, this is a watershed moment for the entire region. Its a huge blow to groups like Al-Queda and whatnot unless they are able to get some of their guys elected moving forward. Should they not be able to do that, I suspect we start seeing suicide bombings of Egyptians all over the place much like in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.

Though Mubarek is gone, the real ground work is only beginning.

[CaptainCrunch]

The last part of your post is the best part Transplant. I always worry about what I call third world militaries. The fact that they didn't step in on the governments behalf tells me that they were equally frustrated by Mubarak's rule.

But the longer the protesters stay on the street and the more the economy slides always makes me think that there's some Colonel sitting in an office with a few other officers who have absolute loyalty in their units who are now talking about how the country and the people need order.

The longer there's a vacuum on top the more you begin to fear that the Military becomes the third leg in the power struggle.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wasn't all that bad compared to what though?

No he isn't among the Pol Pot/Adolph Hitler group of loonies, but there is an extensive list of human rights abuses under his watch that a place like Amnesty International would have a book the size of New York on.

Mubarek was good for Israel, and for helping maintain stability in that part of the mid-east. He was good for the USA as an ally and a geo-political station.

He was NOT good for the people of Egypt however. Not in the least. That's why they decided enough was enough.

There was no such thing as a democracy under his rule either. You couldnt hold office there if you didnt run under his parties banner. (New Democratic party ironically). He quelled many an uprising in the past with violence, its just that this time it was way way to big for him and his security guys to stop. Remember that the citizens of Egypt have tried this in spots in the past only to be thwarted by his "police" force. The uprising in 2008 the most recent organized one.

Though Mubarek lost the military this time, he still had his guard on hand and we saw that last week when the protestors were attacked repeatedly.

I have said all along that although he has to go as it is what the people want, Mubarek was also a guy that could keep things from falling into total chaos and allow time for things to happen. That's not the case any longer.

I think some serious questions have to be answered soon. Who is running things and are decisions made as a group or is the military command doing as they wish? Freedom for the first time is an intoxicating feeling and we have to hope that it doesnt translate to some form of anarchy.

Whatever happens from here on out however, this is a watershed moment for the entire region. Its a huge blow to groups like Al-Queda and whatnot unless they are able to get some of their guys elected moving forward. Should they not be able to do that, I suspect we start seeing suicide bombings of Egyptians all over the place much like in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.

Though Mubarek is gone, the real ground work is only beginning.

I think you make a lot of good points, but I disagree with you on some things:

1) I don't think that Al Queda type groups see this as a blow. Strong men like Mubarak actually do a lot to keep these groups at bay. A major reason for US support. With the removal of Mubarak this presents a large opportunity for groops like Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood to move their agenda forward. How succesful they are really depends on the Egyptian people and whether they are willing and/or able to stop islamic fundamentalism from spreading.

2) I think that although Egypt was by no means a democracy, it was a relatively liberal country in the region with some democratic freedoms that simply don't exist in some other countries in the region. Yes there were many human rights abuses, but if you look at things on a per capita basis compared to other countries in the region, it makes Egypt look...well not quite as bad.

3) I think you exaggerate the people's disatisfaction with Mubarak himself. I think a large part of the reason for the protest was economic. Will the next government be able to solve these same problems? Probably not, at least not quickly. The question, once again, remains: how will the Egyptian population respond to this adversity?

[GirlySports]

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

GREAT point made by Chris Matthews on MSNBC just now.

I will parahrase.

"This should send a message to the 2nd amendment whackos that say you need guns to make a change as we have just witnessed a government come down without a shot fired by those who were trying to make things happen"

This is why Chris Matthews is an idiot.
So we have one relatively non-violent revolution and now Americans should be handing over their guns?

300 Egyptians are dead Matthews....the people had no guns so they were throwing rocks and sticks....and getting shot in return.

Laughably short sighted...

Anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment is a "whacko" now? This guy has zero respect for the constitution.

Also, we will see if this peaceful revolution actually changes anything for the Egyptian people. I suspect it won't, as Egypt has gotten all tied up with the IMF.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is why Chris Matthews is an idiot.
So we have one relatively non-violent revolution and now Americans should be handing over their guns?

300 Egyptians are dead Matthews....the people had no guns so they were throwing rocks and sticks....and getting shot in return.

Laughably short sighted...

Anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment is a "whacko" now? This guy has zero respect for the constitution.

Also, we will see if this peaceful revolution actually changes anything for the Egyptian people. I suspect it won't, as Egypt has gotten all tied up with the IMF.

Like the US government is going to go all Tiananman Square on the American public. Give your head a shake.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Like the US government is going to go all Tiananman Square on the American public. Give your head a shake.

Well maybe not tomorrow, but 20, 50, 100 years from now?
Never say never.

I'm sure Germans and Russians never thought that a murderous, tyrannical, dictatorial regime would take over their nation and enslave them either.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

300 Egyptians are dead Matthews....the people had no guns so they were throwing rocks and sticks....and getting shot in return.

And how many do you think would be dead if the people who were throwing rocks did have guns?

[HOZ]

So now....

1. Do we see the Muslim Brotherhood take over and start a war with Israel directly or through proxy?
2. Do we see a parliament that is fractured so much that it is useless? Possibly allowing a coup by the army?
3. Do we see a rise of another strong man?
4. Do we see a strong democracy rise?

I would love to see #4 but I am thinking it is the least likely outcome. #1 and 2 are my choices.

Israel Watches an Ally depart

The official said it was more likely than not that Egypt would maintain its peace treaty with Israel and added that, in any case, relations with Israel would probably not be among the first concerns of incoming Egyptian authorities.

“First, Egyptians may choose to embrace the model of a secular reformist state with a prominent role for the military. There is a second possibility that the Islamists exploit the influence to gradually take the country into a reverse direction — not towards modernity and reform but backward.
“And there’s still a third possibility — that Egypt would go the way of Iran, where calls for progress would be silenced by a dark and violent despotism that subjugates its own people and threatens everyone else.”

[Hanni]

Bump, Egypt is at it again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15814035

Clashes have again erupted in the Egyptian capital as security forces continue their efforts to clear Cairo's Tahrir Square of protesters.

At least 33 people are reported to have died since the violence began on Saturday with hundreds more injured.

Protesters fear the interim military government is trying to retain its grip on power.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ring-live.html

• Egypt on brink of second revolution against military
• 35 killed as police tackle protesters in Tahrir Square
• Rubber bullets and tear gas fired at demonstrators
• Egyptian parliamentary elections to start on Nov 28